Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Final Assignment
In the beginning of this school year, I perceived the American Way of Life as one that "essentially revolves around self-desires, competition, and an injustice between work and value." I remember on the first week of school, Andy had us draw out the image we incorporate with the words, "American Way of Life." I recall myself drawing a fat guy sitting on a couch, in front of the T.V. Looking back at, I can now say that I had a very typical American response to the typical American Way of Life. Through evaluating different aspects of the American Way of Life, I can see that this is something that is much more complicated. Rather than just being a life full of laziness and selfishness, the American Way of Life is one that alienates Americans from life itself. In addition, this alienation will ultimately lead to the downfall of America.
One of the most fundamental building blocks of this country is our Constitution; this is also known as "The Supreme Law of Land." These laws are all the laws that everyone in the United States has to follow. This document states what the people are allowed to and not allowed to do. As the history of the United States continues to expand, Amendments are established to revise the original Constitution. While interviewing people about the system and the democracy that we have in America, numerous people mentioned freedom. One woman said, "Here in America, we can do whatever we want...Although we waste our time, people seem to be a lot happier than any other people outside of America." And when I interviewed my older cousin, she had a similar response: “the people can actually express their opinion and have an input on how to benefit their way of living.” The people believe that the Constitution allows them to have certain privileges. In America, people believe that they are given freedom through this piece of document. Our rights stated in the first 10 amendments do not come from the government or the Constitution itself. It is just our rights as humans. By existing, we are supposed to have the right to do whatever we want. Society and forms of government were just created to limit those rights. So even though, we are given this "freedom" in America, we are really just being less restricted. Therefore, our basic human rights to certain actions are alienated from us through the basis of this country, the Constitution. Believing that we are limited in our actions by the government of this country, we refuse to actually take action. Being constraint in our actions, a revolution can never or will be difficult to take place.
In this country, we celebrate holidays that are quite responsive to the American values. For instance, we celebrate Thanksgivings. Most people say that Thanksgiving is a holiday to be thankful for what you have. But I do not know why you would need a holiday for that, and neither does my family. This holiday reveals that the American Way of Life requires some sort of reason or reward for doing anything. In this case, you would need a feast in order to appreciate the people and life that you have. The economic system and the lifestyle in America ties together almost perfectly: give in order to get. In America, it is a rare to have people doing something for the sake of doing it. There has to be some sort of self-satisfaction, whether it in shape of a gift, money, return-service, tax-reduction, etc. As part of living the American Way of Life, we also live through the obsession for material objects. This obsession demeans all value for the family gatherings, and prove that without a feast or any particular reasoning, we would not even host these events.
As part of Thanksgiving, Black Friday is a very big event where every store in America has sales, but it is also an opportunity for us to understand our AWOL. Everyone starts camping out in front of the stores days in advance. Every year, Black Friday continues to reveal and emphasize on the greed of Americans. People would do anything to save a couple of bucks (which they're going to spend buying more stuff anyways). This year a man in Wal-Mart was trampled to death because people were rushing in the store. When there are sales that is the only thing that the people see. They do not notice the 6'5 man fall down and that they're walking all over him. It doesn't matter, as long as they get into the store the fastest. I think Black Friday takes off the good-guy mask off of everyone. The people are now willing to take that mask off because they are going to rewarded with a massive sale. This incident showed us the lack of consideration found in the AWOL. Everyone in that Wal-Mart was so blinded by the deals and the opportunity to save a few bucks, that no one could take notice by the lump that they are running over. As a result, a man was killed by the greed of the people on Black Friday. When money is involved, another human being can be completely ignored and disregarded. Everyone there was just going with the flow, which is the AWOL but on a smaller scale. The people were just moving along with the drift and were following the overwhelming general movement. This also shows us that the image of Americans of being slackers is not completely true. Living the AWOL is about having ambition, but unfortunately it is for money. Americans' obsession for money, created by the AWOL, took away all consideration for the other human beings. Just as, the victim was stumbled to his death, through the oblivion of the American people, the same will happen will our entire society. In the country we live in, people only see the physical representation of value that they are saving. And as we continue on following this mentality and going with this flow, the country will gradually decline into its downfall.
Aside from the Constitution and our yearly holidays, we can also examine the way that we handle births in the country, to look for alienation towards life. As of right now 99% of the births in America are “normal births,” meaning it takes place in a hospital, where one or more doctor is involved, the option of taking epidurals and pitocins is available, and about a third of the births lead to a caesarian section (according to “Business of Being Born”). Around a month ago, I believed all these aspects of birth were good and indispensable to the birth process. However after interviewing several mothers, receiving many lectures, researching, watching various videos, reading a few articles and listening to guest speakers, I have gained a small but significant amount of insight into the American Way of Birth, which would be the normal hospital births.
Whether or not, we will have to personally or directly be involved with the birthing process, we all believe it is a painful and disgusting to a certain extent. Consciously we, or at least I, believe and say that birth is beautiful thing. But subconsciously, the image that often takes place in a hospital with a woman going through an extremely long process involving blood, screaming, and overall instability is incorporated with the idea of birth. And it is this image, created by the American Way of Birth that alienates America from the true meaning of birth. The perception of something being disgusting and repulsive is caused by the feeling of borders being crossed, as explained by Julia Kristeva. She says, “The abject body repeatedly violates its own borders, and disrupts the wish for physical self control and social propriety.” This concept of why we believe birth is partially a repulsive process is due to the violation of borders that occurs in the hospital while a female is giving birth, according to Kristeva. In a hospital, a woman in labor is connected to many wires that restrain her movements, which Kristeva would describe as the disruption of “physical self control.” In addition to the physical limitation, the mother also faces emotional suppression. The doctors overwhelm the mother and delude any feelings or thoughts that the mother has. According to Julia Kristeva, our subconscious view on births being something sickening is germane to the crossing of boundaries in hospitals. Thus the American Way of Birth is alienating us from the genuine perception on birth.
Rather than seeing births as an entrance of another human being, some people view it as “labor” and as a part of what you have to do in order to get what you want. In an article named, MD- Midwife in Disguise, the author says “My mother talked about birth being hard work- painful, yes, but an intensely physical experience with a tremendous reward when the work was done.” In America, birth is seen as an obstacle. Not knowing that birth can be a wonderful experience and sometimes even an “orgasmic” one, we view it as “work.” Our approach of birth in America has led us to perceive it as something to just get out of the way, and is alienating us from the fact that it can be a pleasurable moment in each of our lives.
Other than alienating our view on birth, the American Way of Birth also alienates the mothers from themselves. The American Way of Birth has led woman to be believe that they do not have the ability to give birth by themselves. One of the teachers in our school, Ms. Plaza was brave enough to share her birth story with our class. And her story is a perfect example of the alienation of the mother and themselves. In her experience, Ms. Plaza had to wait for the doctor to arrive to her room. And when he finally arrived, she said, “We can do this.” Ms. Plaza, as well as many other women in America, is convinced that they cannot give birth without the doctor. The alienation from the American Way of Birth is especially apparent when she referred to the person giving birth as “we.” Women who plan on having a child in America are now totally mentally reliant on the doctors. The American Way of Birth has alienated women from their abilities to give birth.
The alienation between a mother and the experience of giving birth is also seen in the Monty Python skit, as well as Ms. Plaza’s birth story. Unlike the Business of Being Born, the Monty Python skit portrays the moment after birth as it being the doctor saying, “Isolate it.” The child is immediately taken away from the mother, and there is no bonding between the two of them. Even though Monty Python is a skit, this is often times this is true for almost all hospital births. One real life example would be Ms. Plaza’s birthing experience. In her story, she gave birth in a hospital, where she was completely worn out by the waiting and the labor. And after the labor was finally over, she was already saying “take the baby away.” While, ;the women in the movie, Business of Being Born were closely bonding with their children, Ms. Plaza could care less about the presence of her baby, mainly due to the exhaustion of the hospital. The normal hospital birth, also referred to as the American Way of Birth, alienates the experience of giving birth and the experience of connecting with her child after the labor done. And by following this way of giving birth, we Americanize another thing offered to us by nature. Having hospital births- involving different interventions and avoiding the full experience- may not necessarily cause the downfall of our civilization, but when the time comes and we are no longer able to have births take place in a hospital, the people will not be prepared to approach the natural birth, which does not involve a stranger with a piece of paper that certifies him as a “professional.”
From what is presented on the movie SiCKO, it seems that having universal health care in the U.S. would only be an improvement to the country. So why have we not made that transition from HMOs to single payer or socialized health care, even when many of the other Western countries, such as Canada, Great Britain, France and Cuba, are already following this system? The reason why to anything is never clear, nor definitive, however I believe the prevention of this change lies amongst the people of the U.S. It is not because universal health care is a bad system and will lead to the deaths of many people; it is because the people in the U.S. are unwilling to amend to a different system and admit that their own system is not the best one out there, partially because they want to remain “superior” and partially because they do not know that. Regardless, the health care system is still corrupt. Our attitude towards health care in this country also draws us further from the path of improvement and brings us closer to a road of despair.
Americans are often described as “stupid” and “ignorant,” which is not that far from the truth, judging from what I have seen from others and myself. Many of the people that I met in the past appear to know very little about the things that occur around them, even when they directly affect their own lives. In my most recent interviews about America’s health care system, most of the responses reflect on this ignorance. The common responses to the questions, “Do you think we should use the France or Britain or Canada’s health care systems as a model for the system in America” or “Do you agree or disagree with Obama’s health care plan?”Were, if not pertained to, the phrases such as “which is...,” “I guess…” or “what exactly is Obama planning to do?” People in America are not informed about the current situations with their own country or any other country. This ignorance is partially why we cannot have a revolution in America leading towards universal health care. Without this knowledge, the people cannot differentiate bad systems and better systems. The people do not know enough to see the flaws and the better alternatives, even when it is presented right in front of them.
Our lack of universal health, however, is not solely resulted from our lack of knowledge. Rather, it is also the outcome of our low standards and satisfaction from minor benefits. As long as there’s limited health coverage from some people, those people will be satisfied and follow the current system. When my mother was asked about our current health care situation, she responded by saying that she was happy that the government is willing to pay for her expenses. She added that our government is better than most other countries. It was shocking to hear this from my mother, being that I can recall many times where she was denied of certain doctors because they were not within her network. There were also many times where I have heard her complain about having to pay for some of her expenses. But despite all this, she still support the current health care system in America, which shows us that, in America, if the government provides some aid the people will accept it and ask nothing more of it. Just as it was said in SiCKO, the American people fear the government, and they fear that if they intervene with the government’s plans, then they will lose the aid that they already have. Therefore America would never be able to progress until the people lose this fear and adjust their standards.
Americans are not only controlled by the fear for their government, but also by the fear of transforming into their greatest enemies, communists. In SiCKO, it was referred to as “The Red Nightmare.” Throughout history, the American people have viewed people such as Mao Zhedong, Che Guevera, and Joseph Stalin; people with socialist and communist views, as the villains. And to have socialized healthcare, it would be seem like the country is taking one step towards communism, eliminating everyone’s chance of rising to the top. However this view is created by our values that have been heavily influenced by the government and what they portray in the media. If America were to learn to not intake everything that is given to them, then maybe they will begin to accept the alternative views and consider it.
These characteristics of the American people are not the only reason, but are definitely factors to why America still does not have universal health care. But if we were to begin inform ourselves about our health care situation, and listen to people (from Denmark) rather than making comments such as “the one in the pink looked hot,” begin to have higher demands, such as the people in France and make the government fear people rather than the other way around, and begin to open up our minds to other systems rather than making websites such as this one, then maybe we can move on towards a better way of living. Even then, there are more unknown variables that need to be changed about the American way of life, because 60% of Americans believe that the country needs to follow a different health care system, and yet remain as a country that predominantly follows HMOs. As we continue on, using this health care system, we remain as the country with the highest death rates and one of the countries with lower life expectancy. The people in America obviously needs to begin evaluating their own systems and seeking for better ones, but for now we can only continue to be a nation where 40% of our people are covered by health care, looking up to countries such as France where 99% of the people of covered (assuming that they know that fact). [Link] Meanwhile, Americans are oblivious to alternatives and constantly drifts further away from a better society. This path we follow, that is reflected by our health care system, shows that our lifestyle eliminates the privilege of having options and alternatives.
Countless times have I said, “Yo I’m hungry. I want something to eat.” I sought for food whenever my body felt weary, because of its calories and its ability to rejuvenate its consumer. And it would not be foolish to assume that most of America does the same. Rarely, do we view food as something pleasurable, rather than something necessary for survival; both of which are true. This alienation of Americans and the food we eat, I would say, is the result of our disconnection with nature. Our view of the world around us is directly correlated with our food-ways and our view of our foods.
“Ask one of those eaters where their steak or soda comes from and she’ll tell you ‘the supermarket’”(Pollan, 34-35). As depicted by this quote from The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Americans go around not knowing, nor wondering where our foods come from. Whenever we think of the place to get food, we simply think of a supermarket. In America, the vast majority does not gather their own food from the Earth. Instead, we exchange green pieces of paper for the sources of energy for our bodies that represent an “equivalent value.” We do not wish to understand how exactly nature provides these resources nor understand the process that the food went through to be placed in our refrigerators. We do not wish to grow our own foods from the Earth nor make the effort to create something meaningful within our foods. That is because, as Jared Diamond says, “We get our energy from oil and machines, not from our sweat.” Americans do not work with nature for their foods, and therefore do not appreciate food as much.
Being that we get our foods from the supermarket, our foods come from corporations through mass productions of each particular food. And of course, being that corporations are corporations, their ultimate goal is maximized profit. Our food has been industrialized for the convenience of the people and the pockets of the big businessmen. Within any industry, “profit is the name of the game,” as said in the Meatrix. And to the food industry, nature is just what produces the pieces necessary to win this game. In order to maximize their profits, any industry feels it is necessary to take advantage their access to nature. Thus technology, such as GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) , are used. In the case of corn production, having a “higher yield” is the goal of using technology. "The higher yield of modern hybrids stems mainly from the fact that they can be planted so close together, thirty thousand to the acre instead of eight thousand in his father's days" (Pollan, 37). By having a higher yield, the farmer is able to take advantage of the land that he has, and is able to maximizing his profit off of something other than himself.It allows the mass productions of different foods and the exhaustion of any resource the Earth provides to each individual farm. The perspective of the “producers” of our foods on the Earth we live on is that it is a source of wealth. And to the farmers, food would to be nothing more than their income.
Within America, there has always been an artificial separation between “humans” and “animals.” This separation causes the alienation of humans from nature, which will lead to the alienation of humans from their food. Between humans and animals, humans particularly the ones found on the land labelled as America views themselves as the more superior. According to my mother, whatever beings that has its back facing the sky is meant to be eaten by humans. It has always been man versus nature.The music video for “The Cows with Guns,” depicts this exact differentiation. We do not accept the fact that we are part of nature, and are animals as well. By neglecting this fact, we neglect our animalistic instincts to hunt and gather. Instead, we turn to what Jared Diamond calls, “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race,” agriculture. Just as we have domesticated crops and animals, humans have also taken control of nature itself for the mass-production of various commodities. And as we all know, this mass production ultimately leads to the packaged-foods which we, the people purchase and use to rejuvenate our bodies, without ever wondering the whole process of how the food ended up in our stomachs. Separating ourselves from animals, we never strive to have a direct connection with nature through the foods we eat. Therefore, nature and food will always remain as another alienated aspect of life that humans will never get to truly experience.
As we continue to disregard nature, we will continue to mindlessly eat our plastic-sealed foods, never quite understanding the full pleasure of real food. As humans, we do not work with nature so that both will have a sustainable lifestyle. Humans will continue to use nature as object to gain pieces of paper that were created by nature. Our instincts as animals will continue to be neglected, as we drift further away from our ancestry. And we will continue to eat GMO’s that have been purchased in the supermarket, and inflict the downfall of both humans and nature. Meanwhile, nature will continue to be depreciated and exhausted by the beings that it surrounds. It’s whole existence will continue to be reduced down to figments, which provides a sense of “value.” The alienation between humans and nature has resulted in the alienation of our foods. However, if we were to become more intact with nature (and possibly produce our own foods), the alienation of our foods would gradually decline as well. We will begin to understand that our foodway- the consumption of food, the interpretation of food, the non-numeric value that we give our foods, the production of food- is wrong. As results that come hand-in-hand with this comprehension, humans will end animal cruelty, the Earth will possibly live past the year 2100, a greater appreciation for food will be achieved, and New Yorkers can pick food from Central Park without being pulled over by a park ranger. But for now, food will remain as how "Our Daily Bread" portrays it: a long and boring process that we go through in order to survive in both this world, and in our society. Consuming at such a rate, without truly valuing the source of this food, Americans will eventually guide themselves into their own downfall.
Similar to a child putting in a game card into his GameBoy, playing the game and then eventually ridding it after it becomes boring, the acts of the human race placed industrialism onto this Earth. And following the same course, industrialism will be naturally discarded. However, in order for this game to be played, a certain amount of energy must be consumed; after which, it only a portion of the energy that was present before the game will remain. This process is one that cannot be avoided, for the reasons that it has already begun and that humans have become completely and utterly reliant on fossil fuel. And just as the source of fossil fuel is limited, this source of entertainment has a limited longevity, both of which will eventually lead to the collapse of industrialization.
Our exhaustion of fossil fuels is quite similar to the Easter Islanders' self-destruction through deforestation. In both scenarios, nature has to do some sort of adjustment in order to fit according to the human preferences. For the Easter Island, it is the cutting down of the trees to adjust to the humans' desire to create giant stone statues. In our modern society, the nature adjusts to the humans' desire for wealth, which I guess would be the same as the Easter Islanders' statues, by having its fossil fuel extracted. As the each group of people tries to "improve" and strives to outdo each other, there will be a greater consumption of resources. Being that our society has such similarities with the Easter Islanders it is difficult to see this as a model, showing that this path will only lead to the decline of our own civilization. In addition, "Polynesian Easter Island was as isolated in the Pacific Ocean as the Earth is today in space. When the Easter Islanders got into difficulties, there was nowhere to which they could flee, nor to which they could turn for help; nor shall we modern Earthlings have recourse elsewhere if our troubles increase. Those are the reasons why people see the collapse of Easter Island society as a metaphor, a worst-case scenario, for what may lie ahead of us in our own future" (Diamond, 20). Looking back at history, we can see a civilization's exhaustion of natural resources provided can only lead to its downfall. And while Diamond describes this as "worst-case scenario" that "may lie ahead of us," I would say that this is inevitable.
Jared Diamond also states that, "Thanks to globalization, international trade, jet planes, and the Internet, all countries on Earth today share resources and affect each other, just as did Easter's dozen clans" (Diamond, 20). Although we may share resources, the amount of resources remains limited regardless. And a continuing (exponential) growth requires a similar consumption of energy. Without this our civilization, following the idea of entropy, which states that everything will fall apart to the lowest level, will break down into a mere group of beings that share a similar body structure and set of skills. The "this" is the fundamental basis of our current economy, fossil fuel. And of course, fossil fuel has a limit that we will hypothetically, eventually meet. But according to "A Crude Awakening" and "Limits to Growth- Oil," we will not, for the simple reason that it will no longer be profitable to extract ("Within a couple of years, one barrel invested will only produce one barrel of oil!"). At that point, which will be approximately be when half of the Earth's oil supply is gone according to Hubbert, peak oil will be reached. The "production" of oil will be at its maximum, and steadily or rapidly decline. Regardless of the declining rate, oil production will surely end and so will our industrialized civilization, which heavily depends on the oil.
A civilization that runs on and is based on the consumption of fossil fuel is not a sustainable one, and is one that we live in. This industrialized civilization is bound to collapse and follow the path of the civilization that once inhabited Easter Island. The ultimate reality, nature will not be able to support it. Without the constant consumption of fossil fuel our civilization will not last, just like how without alkaline batteries the child will not be able to continue playing his game. Entropy will take place, and the simulation will break down into a blank screen of emptiness. The American Way of Life includes all these aspects, which will contribute to this exhaustion of resources for the reason that it alienates us from what nature has to offer. There is less of an appreciation for all the things that are natural and can potentially lead to a sustainable lifestyle. However we, the Americans, replaced and alienated those things for convenience and for false representation of worth. Following this ultimately brings our society towards a collapse. And not only does this lifestyle contribute to this destruction, but it also prevents any change of courses. Our trust in the Constitution allows us to believe that what we have is great, and everything we do is for the greater good. In addition, our attitudes towards alternative methods, such as universal health care, prevent us from applying anything new to our system, for the reason that it admits fault. Regardless, it would appear that our country and our people are too far into the abyss that a collapse is nearly inevitable. A destruction is bound to happen, and it is all due to the different aspects of the American Way of Life that alienates us from life.
One of the most fundamental building blocks of this country is our Constitution; this is also known as "The Supreme Law of Land." These laws are all the laws that everyone in the United States has to follow. This document states what the people are allowed to and not allowed to do. As the history of the United States continues to expand, Amendments are established to revise the original Constitution. While interviewing people about the system and the democracy that we have in America, numerous people mentioned freedom. One woman said, "Here in America, we can do whatever we want...Although we waste our time, people seem to be a lot happier than any other people outside of America." And when I interviewed my older cousin, she had a similar response: “the people can actually express their opinion and have an input on how to benefit their way of living.” The people believe that the Constitution allows them to have certain privileges. In America, people believe that they are given freedom through this piece of document. Our rights stated in the first 10 amendments do not come from the government or the Constitution itself. It is just our rights as humans. By existing, we are supposed to have the right to do whatever we want. Society and forms of government were just created to limit those rights. So even though, we are given this "freedom" in America, we are really just being less restricted. Therefore, our basic human rights to certain actions are alienated from us through the basis of this country, the Constitution. Believing that we are limited in our actions by the government of this country, we refuse to actually take action. Being constraint in our actions, a revolution can never or will be difficult to take place.
In this country, we celebrate holidays that are quite responsive to the American values. For instance, we celebrate Thanksgivings. Most people say that Thanksgiving is a holiday to be thankful for what you have. But I do not know why you would need a holiday for that, and neither does my family. This holiday reveals that the American Way of Life requires some sort of reason or reward for doing anything. In this case, you would need a feast in order to appreciate the people and life that you have. The economic system and the lifestyle in America ties together almost perfectly: give in order to get. In America, it is a rare to have people doing something for the sake of doing it. There has to be some sort of self-satisfaction, whether it in shape of a gift, money, return-service, tax-reduction, etc. As part of living the American Way of Life, we also live through the obsession for material objects. This obsession demeans all value for the family gatherings, and prove that without a feast or any particular reasoning, we would not even host these events.
As part of Thanksgiving, Black Friday is a very big event where every store in America has sales, but it is also an opportunity for us to understand our AWOL. Everyone starts camping out in front of the stores days in advance. Every year, Black Friday continues to reveal and emphasize on the greed of Americans. People would do anything to save a couple of bucks (which they're going to spend buying more stuff anyways). This year a man in Wal-Mart was trampled to death because people were rushing in the store. When there are sales that is the only thing that the people see. They do not notice the 6'5 man fall down and that they're walking all over him. It doesn't matter, as long as they get into the store the fastest. I think Black Friday takes off the good-guy mask off of everyone. The people are now willing to take that mask off because they are going to rewarded with a massive sale. This incident showed us the lack of consideration found in the AWOL. Everyone in that Wal-Mart was so blinded by the deals and the opportunity to save a few bucks, that no one could take notice by the lump that they are running over. As a result, a man was killed by the greed of the people on Black Friday. When money is involved, another human being can be completely ignored and disregarded. Everyone there was just going with the flow, which is the AWOL but on a smaller scale. The people were just moving along with the drift and were following the overwhelming general movement. This also shows us that the image of Americans of being slackers is not completely true. Living the AWOL is about having ambition, but unfortunately it is for money. Americans' obsession for money, created by the AWOL, took away all consideration for the other human beings. Just as, the victim was stumbled to his death, through the oblivion of the American people, the same will happen will our entire society. In the country we live in, people only see the physical representation of value that they are saving. And as we continue on following this mentality and going with this flow, the country will gradually decline into its downfall.
Aside from the Constitution and our yearly holidays, we can also examine the way that we handle births in the country, to look for alienation towards life. As of right now 99% of the births in America are “normal births,” meaning it takes place in a hospital, where one or more doctor is involved, the option of taking epidurals and pitocins is available, and about a third of the births lead to a caesarian section (according to “Business of Being Born”). Around a month ago, I believed all these aspects of birth were good and indispensable to the birth process. However after interviewing several mothers, receiving many lectures, researching, watching various videos, reading a few articles and listening to guest speakers, I have gained a small but significant amount of insight into the American Way of Birth, which would be the normal hospital births.
Whether or not, we will have to personally or directly be involved with the birthing process, we all believe it is a painful and disgusting to a certain extent. Consciously we, or at least I, believe and say that birth is beautiful thing. But subconsciously, the image that often takes place in a hospital with a woman going through an extremely long process involving blood, screaming, and overall instability is incorporated with the idea of birth. And it is this image, created by the American Way of Birth that alienates America from the true meaning of birth. The perception of something being disgusting and repulsive is caused by the feeling of borders being crossed, as explained by Julia Kristeva. She says, “The abject body repeatedly violates its own borders, and disrupts the wish for physical self control and social propriety.” This concept of why we believe birth is partially a repulsive process is due to the violation of borders that occurs in the hospital while a female is giving birth, according to Kristeva. In a hospital, a woman in labor is connected to many wires that restrain her movements, which Kristeva would describe as the disruption of “physical self control.” In addition to the physical limitation, the mother also faces emotional suppression. The doctors overwhelm the mother and delude any feelings or thoughts that the mother has. According to Julia Kristeva, our subconscious view on births being something sickening is germane to the crossing of boundaries in hospitals. Thus the American Way of Birth is alienating us from the genuine perception on birth.
Rather than seeing births as an entrance of another human being, some people view it as “labor” and as a part of what you have to do in order to get what you want. In an article named, MD- Midwife in Disguise, the author says “My mother talked about birth being hard work- painful, yes, but an intensely physical experience with a tremendous reward when the work was done.” In America, birth is seen as an obstacle. Not knowing that birth can be a wonderful experience and sometimes even an “orgasmic” one, we view it as “work.” Our approach of birth in America has led us to perceive it as something to just get out of the way, and is alienating us from the fact that it can be a pleasurable moment in each of our lives.
Other than alienating our view on birth, the American Way of Birth also alienates the mothers from themselves. The American Way of Birth has led woman to be believe that they do not have the ability to give birth by themselves. One of the teachers in our school, Ms. Plaza was brave enough to share her birth story with our class. And her story is a perfect example of the alienation of the mother and themselves. In her experience, Ms. Plaza had to wait for the doctor to arrive to her room. And when he finally arrived, she said, “We can do this.” Ms. Plaza, as well as many other women in America, is convinced that they cannot give birth without the doctor. The alienation from the American Way of Birth is especially apparent when she referred to the person giving birth as “we.” Women who plan on having a child in America are now totally mentally reliant on the doctors. The American Way of Birth has alienated women from their abilities to give birth.
The alienation between a mother and the experience of giving birth is also seen in the Monty Python skit, as well as Ms. Plaza’s birth story. Unlike the Business of Being Born, the Monty Python skit portrays the moment after birth as it being the doctor saying, “Isolate it.” The child is immediately taken away from the mother, and there is no bonding between the two of them. Even though Monty Python is a skit, this is often times this is true for almost all hospital births. One real life example would be Ms. Plaza’s birthing experience. In her story, she gave birth in a hospital, where she was completely worn out by the waiting and the labor. And after the labor was finally over, she was already saying “take the baby away.” While, ;the women in the movie, Business of Being Born were closely bonding with their children, Ms. Plaza could care less about the presence of her baby, mainly due to the exhaustion of the hospital. The normal hospital birth, also referred to as the American Way of Birth, alienates the experience of giving birth and the experience of connecting with her child after the labor done. And by following this way of giving birth, we Americanize another thing offered to us by nature. Having hospital births- involving different interventions and avoiding the full experience- may not necessarily cause the downfall of our civilization, but when the time comes and we are no longer able to have births take place in a hospital, the people will not be prepared to approach the natural birth, which does not involve a stranger with a piece of paper that certifies him as a “professional.”
From what is presented on the movie SiCKO, it seems that having universal health care in the U.S. would only be an improvement to the country. So why have we not made that transition from HMOs to single payer or socialized health care, even when many of the other Western countries, such as Canada, Great Britain, France and Cuba, are already following this system? The reason why to anything is never clear, nor definitive, however I believe the prevention of this change lies amongst the people of the U.S. It is not because universal health care is a bad system and will lead to the deaths of many people; it is because the people in the U.S. are unwilling to amend to a different system and admit that their own system is not the best one out there, partially because they want to remain “superior” and partially because they do not know that. Regardless, the health care system is still corrupt. Our attitude towards health care in this country also draws us further from the path of improvement and brings us closer to a road of despair.
Americans are often described as “stupid” and “ignorant,” which is not that far from the truth, judging from what I have seen from others and myself. Many of the people that I met in the past appear to know very little about the things that occur around them, even when they directly affect their own lives. In my most recent interviews about America’s health care system, most of the responses reflect on this ignorance. The common responses to the questions, “Do you think we should use the France or Britain or Canada’s health care systems as a model for the system in America” or “Do you agree or disagree with Obama’s health care plan?”Were, if not pertained to, the phrases such as “which is...,” “I guess…” or “what exactly is Obama planning to do?” People in America are not informed about the current situations with their own country or any other country. This ignorance is partially why we cannot have a revolution in America leading towards universal health care. Without this knowledge, the people cannot differentiate bad systems and better systems. The people do not know enough to see the flaws and the better alternatives, even when it is presented right in front of them.
Our lack of universal health, however, is not solely resulted from our lack of knowledge. Rather, it is also the outcome of our low standards and satisfaction from minor benefits. As long as there’s limited health coverage from some people, those people will be satisfied and follow the current system. When my mother was asked about our current health care situation, she responded by saying that she was happy that the government is willing to pay for her expenses. She added that our government is better than most other countries. It was shocking to hear this from my mother, being that I can recall many times where she was denied of certain doctors because they were not within her network. There were also many times where I have heard her complain about having to pay for some of her expenses. But despite all this, she still support the current health care system in America, which shows us that, in America, if the government provides some aid the people will accept it and ask nothing more of it. Just as it was said in SiCKO, the American people fear the government, and they fear that if they intervene with the government’s plans, then they will lose the aid that they already have. Therefore America would never be able to progress until the people lose this fear and adjust their standards.
Americans are not only controlled by the fear for their government, but also by the fear of transforming into their greatest enemies, communists. In SiCKO, it was referred to as “The Red Nightmare.” Throughout history, the American people have viewed people such as Mao Zhedong, Che Guevera, and Joseph Stalin; people with socialist and communist views, as the villains. And to have socialized healthcare, it would be seem like the country is taking one step towards communism, eliminating everyone’s chance of rising to the top. However this view is created by our values that have been heavily influenced by the government and what they portray in the media. If America were to learn to not intake everything that is given to them, then maybe they will begin to accept the alternative views and consider it.
These characteristics of the American people are not the only reason, but are definitely factors to why America still does not have universal health care. But if we were to begin inform ourselves about our health care situation, and listen to people (from Denmark) rather than making comments such as “the one in the pink looked hot,” begin to have higher demands, such as the people in France and make the government fear people rather than the other way around, and begin to open up our minds to other systems rather than making websites such as this one, then maybe we can move on towards a better way of living. Even then, there are more unknown variables that need to be changed about the American way of life, because 60% of Americans believe that the country needs to follow a different health care system, and yet remain as a country that predominantly follows HMOs. As we continue on, using this health care system, we remain as the country with the highest death rates and one of the countries with lower life expectancy. The people in America obviously needs to begin evaluating their own systems and seeking for better ones, but for now we can only continue to be a nation where 40% of our people are covered by health care, looking up to countries such as France where 99% of the people of covered (assuming that they know that fact). [Link] Meanwhile, Americans are oblivious to alternatives and constantly drifts further away from a better society. This path we follow, that is reflected by our health care system, shows that our lifestyle eliminates the privilege of having options and alternatives.
Countless times have I said, “Yo I’m hungry. I want something to eat.” I sought for food whenever my body felt weary, because of its calories and its ability to rejuvenate its consumer. And it would not be foolish to assume that most of America does the same. Rarely, do we view food as something pleasurable, rather than something necessary for survival; both of which are true. This alienation of Americans and the food we eat, I would say, is the result of our disconnection with nature. Our view of the world around us is directly correlated with our food-ways and our view of our foods.
“Ask one of those eaters where their steak or soda comes from and she’ll tell you ‘the supermarket’”(Pollan, 34-35). As depicted by this quote from The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Americans go around not knowing, nor wondering where our foods come from. Whenever we think of the place to get food, we simply think of a supermarket. In America, the vast majority does not gather their own food from the Earth. Instead, we exchange green pieces of paper for the sources of energy for our bodies that represent an “equivalent value.” We do not wish to understand how exactly nature provides these resources nor understand the process that the food went through to be placed in our refrigerators. We do not wish to grow our own foods from the Earth nor make the effort to create something meaningful within our foods. That is because, as Jared Diamond says, “We get our energy from oil and machines, not from our sweat.” Americans do not work with nature for their foods, and therefore do not appreciate food as much.
Being that we get our foods from the supermarket, our foods come from corporations through mass productions of each particular food. And of course, being that corporations are corporations, their ultimate goal is maximized profit. Our food has been industrialized for the convenience of the people and the pockets of the big businessmen. Within any industry, “profit is the name of the game,” as said in the Meatrix. And to the food industry, nature is just what produces the pieces necessary to win this game. In order to maximize their profits, any industry feels it is necessary to take advantage their access to nature. Thus technology, such as GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) , are used. In the case of corn production, having a “higher yield” is the goal of using technology. "The higher yield of modern hybrids stems mainly from the fact that they can be planted so close together, thirty thousand to the acre instead of eight thousand in his father's days" (Pollan, 37). By having a higher yield, the farmer is able to take advantage of the land that he has, and is able to maximizing his profit off of something other than himself.It allows the mass productions of different foods and the exhaustion of any resource the Earth provides to each individual farm. The perspective of the “producers” of our foods on the Earth we live on is that it is a source of wealth. And to the farmers, food would to be nothing more than their income.
Within America, there has always been an artificial separation between “humans” and “animals.” This separation causes the alienation of humans from nature, which will lead to the alienation of humans from their food. Between humans and animals, humans particularly the ones found on the land labelled as America views themselves as the more superior. According to my mother, whatever beings that has its back facing the sky is meant to be eaten by humans. It has always been man versus nature.The music video for “The Cows with Guns,” depicts this exact differentiation. We do not accept the fact that we are part of nature, and are animals as well. By neglecting this fact, we neglect our animalistic instincts to hunt and gather. Instead, we turn to what Jared Diamond calls, “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race,” agriculture. Just as we have domesticated crops and animals, humans have also taken control of nature itself for the mass-production of various commodities. And as we all know, this mass production ultimately leads to the packaged-foods which we, the people purchase and use to rejuvenate our bodies, without ever wondering the whole process of how the food ended up in our stomachs. Separating ourselves from animals, we never strive to have a direct connection with nature through the foods we eat. Therefore, nature and food will always remain as another alienated aspect of life that humans will never get to truly experience.
As we continue to disregard nature, we will continue to mindlessly eat our plastic-sealed foods, never quite understanding the full pleasure of real food. As humans, we do not work with nature so that both will have a sustainable lifestyle. Humans will continue to use nature as object to gain pieces of paper that were created by nature. Our instincts as animals will continue to be neglected, as we drift further away from our ancestry. And we will continue to eat GMO’s that have been purchased in the supermarket, and inflict the downfall of both humans and nature. Meanwhile, nature will continue to be depreciated and exhausted by the beings that it surrounds. It’s whole existence will continue to be reduced down to figments, which provides a sense of “value.” The alienation between humans and nature has resulted in the alienation of our foods. However, if we were to become more intact with nature (and possibly produce our own foods), the alienation of our foods would gradually decline as well. We will begin to understand that our foodway- the consumption of food, the interpretation of food, the non-numeric value that we give our foods, the production of food- is wrong. As results that come hand-in-hand with this comprehension, humans will end animal cruelty, the Earth will possibly live past the year 2100, a greater appreciation for food will be achieved, and New Yorkers can pick food from Central Park without being pulled over by a park ranger. But for now, food will remain as how "Our Daily Bread" portrays it: a long and boring process that we go through in order to survive in both this world, and in our society. Consuming at such a rate, without truly valuing the source of this food, Americans will eventually guide themselves into their own downfall.
Similar to a child putting in a game card into his GameBoy, playing the game and then eventually ridding it after it becomes boring, the acts of the human race placed industrialism onto this Earth. And following the same course, industrialism will be naturally discarded. However, in order for this game to be played, a certain amount of energy must be consumed; after which, it only a portion of the energy that was present before the game will remain. This process is one that cannot be avoided, for the reasons that it has already begun and that humans have become completely and utterly reliant on fossil fuel. And just as the source of fossil fuel is limited, this source of entertainment has a limited longevity, both of which will eventually lead to the collapse of industrialization.
Our exhaustion of fossil fuels is quite similar to the Easter Islanders' self-destruction through deforestation. In both scenarios, nature has to do some sort of adjustment in order to fit according to the human preferences. For the Easter Island, it is the cutting down of the trees to adjust to the humans' desire to create giant stone statues. In our modern society, the nature adjusts to the humans' desire for wealth, which I guess would be the same as the Easter Islanders' statues, by having its fossil fuel extracted. As the each group of people tries to "improve" and strives to outdo each other, there will be a greater consumption of resources. Being that our society has such similarities with the Easter Islanders it is difficult to see this as a model, showing that this path will only lead to the decline of our own civilization. In addition, "Polynesian Easter Island was as isolated in the Pacific Ocean as the Earth is today in space. When the Easter Islanders got into difficulties, there was nowhere to which they could flee, nor to which they could turn for help; nor shall we modern Earthlings have recourse elsewhere if our troubles increase. Those are the reasons why people see the collapse of Easter Island society as a metaphor, a worst-case scenario, for what may lie ahead of us in our own future" (Diamond, 20). Looking back at history, we can see a civilization's exhaustion of natural resources provided can only lead to its downfall. And while Diamond describes this as "worst-case scenario" that "may lie ahead of us," I would say that this is inevitable.
Jared Diamond also states that, "Thanks to globalization, international trade, jet planes, and the Internet, all countries on Earth today share resources and affect each other, just as did Easter's dozen clans" (Diamond, 20). Although we may share resources, the amount of resources remains limited regardless. And a continuing (exponential) growth requires a similar consumption of energy. Without this our civilization, following the idea of entropy, which states that everything will fall apart to the lowest level, will break down into a mere group of beings that share a similar body structure and set of skills. The "this" is the fundamental basis of our current economy, fossil fuel. And of course, fossil fuel has a limit that we will hypothetically, eventually meet. But according to "A Crude Awakening" and "Limits to Growth- Oil," we will not, for the simple reason that it will no longer be profitable to extract ("Within a couple of years, one barrel invested will only produce one barrel of oil!"). At that point, which will be approximately be when half of the Earth's oil supply is gone according to Hubbert, peak oil will be reached. The "production" of oil will be at its maximum, and steadily or rapidly decline. Regardless of the declining rate, oil production will surely end and so will our industrialized civilization, which heavily depends on the oil.
A civilization that runs on and is based on the consumption of fossil fuel is not a sustainable one, and is one that we live in. This industrialized civilization is bound to collapse and follow the path of the civilization that once inhabited Easter Island. The ultimate reality, nature will not be able to support it. Without the constant consumption of fossil fuel our civilization will not last, just like how without alkaline batteries the child will not be able to continue playing his game. Entropy will take place, and the simulation will break down into a blank screen of emptiness. The American Way of Life includes all these aspects, which will contribute to this exhaustion of resources for the reason that it alienates us from what nature has to offer. There is less of an appreciation for all the things that are natural and can potentially lead to a sustainable lifestyle. However we, the Americans, replaced and alienated those things for convenience and for false representation of worth. Following this ultimately brings our society towards a collapse. And not only does this lifestyle contribute to this destruction, but it also prevents any change of courses. Our trust in the Constitution allows us to believe that what we have is great, and everything we do is for the greater good. In addition, our attitudes towards alternative methods, such as universal health care, prevent us from applying anything new to our system, for the reason that it admits fault. Regardless, it would appear that our country and our people are too far into the abyss that a collapse is nearly inevitable. A destruction is bound to happen, and it is all due to the different aspects of the American Way of Life that alienates us from life.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Hmm Who Woulda Guessed?
Similar to a child putting in a game card into his GameBoy, playing the game and then eventually ridding it after it becomes boring, the acts of the human race placed industrialism onto this Earth. And following the same course, industrialism will be naturally discarded. However, in order for this game to be played, a certain amount of energy must be consumed; after which, it only a portion of the energy that was present before the game will remain. This process is one that cannot be avoided, for the reasons that it has already begun and that humans have become completely and utterly reliant on fossil fuel. And just as the source of fossil fuel is limited, this source of entertainment has a limited longevity, both of which will eventually lead to the collapse of industrialization.
Our exhaustion of fossil fuels is quite similar to the Easter Islanders' self-destruction through deforestation. In both scenarios, nature has to do some sort of adjustment in order to fit according to the human preferences. For the Easter Island, it is the cutting down of the trees to adjust to the humans' desire to create giant stone statues. In our modern society, the nature adjusts to the humans' desire for wealth, which I guess would be the same as the Easter Islanders' statues, by having its fossil fuel extracted. As the each group of people tries to "improve" and strives to outdo each other, there will be a greater consumption of resources. Being that our society has such similarities with the Easter Islanders it is difficult to see this as a model, showing that this path will only lead to the decline of our own civilization. In addition, "Polynesian Easter Island was as isolated in the Pacific Ocean as the Earth is today in space. When the Easter Islanders got into difficulties, there was nowhere to which they could flee, nor to which they could turn for help; nor shall we modern Earthlings have recourse elsewhere if our troubles increase. Those are the reasons why people see the collapse of Easter Island society as a metaphor, a worst-case scenario, for what may lie ahead of us in our own future" (Diamond, 20). Looking back at history, we can see a civilization's exhaustion of natural resources provided can only lead to its downfall. And while Diamond describes this as "worst-case scenario" that "may lie ahead of us," I would say that this is inevitable.
Jared Diamond also states that, "Thanks to globalization, international trade, jet planes, and the Internet, all countries on Earth today share resources and affect each other, just as did Easter's dozen clans" (Diamond, 20). Although we may share resources, the amount of resources remains limited regardless. And a continuing (exponential) growth requires a similar consumption of energy. Without this our civilization, following the idea of entropy, which states that everything will fall apart to the lowest level, will break down into a mere group of beings that share a similar body structure and set of skills. The "this" is the fundamental basis of our current economy, fossil fuel. And of course, fossil fuel has a limit that we will hypothetically, eventually meet. But according to "A Crude Awakening" and "Limits to Growth- Oil," we will not, for the simple reason that it will no longer be profitable to extract ("Within a couple of years, one barrel invested will only produce one barrel of oil!"). At that point, which will be approximately be when half of the Earth's oil supply is gone according to Hubbert, peak oil will be reached. The "production" of oil will be at its maximum, and steadily or rapidly decline. Regardless of the declining rate, oil production will surely end and so will our industrialized civilization, which heavily depends on the oil.
A civilization that runs on and is based on the consumption of fossil fuel is not a sustainable one, and is one that we live in. This industrialized civilization is bound to collapse and follow the path of the civilization that once inhabited Easter Island. The ultimate reality, nature will not be able to support it. Without the constant consumption of fossil fuel our civilization will not last, just like how without alkaline batteries the child will not be able to continue playing his game. Entropy will take place, and the simulation will break down into a blank screen of emptiness.
Our exhaustion of fossil fuels is quite similar to the Easter Islanders' self-destruction through deforestation. In both scenarios, nature has to do some sort of adjustment in order to fit according to the human preferences. For the Easter Island, it is the cutting down of the trees to adjust to the humans' desire to create giant stone statues. In our modern society, the nature adjusts to the humans' desire for wealth, which I guess would be the same as the Easter Islanders' statues, by having its fossil fuel extracted. As the each group of people tries to "improve" and strives to outdo each other, there will be a greater consumption of resources. Being that our society has such similarities with the Easter Islanders it is difficult to see this as a model, showing that this path will only lead to the decline of our own civilization. In addition, "Polynesian Easter Island was as isolated in the Pacific Ocean as the Earth is today in space. When the Easter Islanders got into difficulties, there was nowhere to which they could flee, nor to which they could turn for help; nor shall we modern Earthlings have recourse elsewhere if our troubles increase. Those are the reasons why people see the collapse of Easter Island society as a metaphor, a worst-case scenario, for what may lie ahead of us in our own future" (Diamond, 20). Looking back at history, we can see a civilization's exhaustion of natural resources provided can only lead to its downfall. And while Diamond describes this as "worst-case scenario" that "may lie ahead of us," I would say that this is inevitable.
Jared Diamond also states that, "Thanks to globalization, international trade, jet planes, and the Internet, all countries on Earth today share resources and affect each other, just as did Easter's dozen clans" (Diamond, 20). Although we may share resources, the amount of resources remains limited regardless. And a continuing (exponential) growth requires a similar consumption of energy. Without this our civilization, following the idea of entropy, which states that everything will fall apart to the lowest level, will break down into a mere group of beings that share a similar body structure and set of skills. The "this" is the fundamental basis of our current economy, fossil fuel. And of course, fossil fuel has a limit that we will hypothetically, eventually meet. But according to "A Crude Awakening" and "Limits to Growth- Oil," we will not, for the simple reason that it will no longer be profitable to extract ("Within a couple of years, one barrel invested will only produce one barrel of oil!"). At that point, which will be approximately be when half of the Earth's oil supply is gone according to Hubbert, peak oil will be reached. The "production" of oil will be at its maximum, and steadily or rapidly decline. Regardless of the declining rate, oil production will surely end and so will our industrialized civilization, which heavily depends on the oil.
A civilization that runs on and is based on the consumption of fossil fuel is not a sustainable one, and is one that we live in. This industrialized civilization is bound to collapse and follow the path of the civilization that once inhabited Easter Island. The ultimate reality, nature will not be able to support it. Without the constant consumption of fossil fuel our civilization will not last, just like how without alkaline batteries the child will not be able to continue playing his game. Entropy will take place, and the simulation will break down into a blank screen of emptiness.
Twilight at Easter [Second Draft/Continuation]
After discussing about chapter 2: Twilight at Easter of Jared Diamond's "Collapse" in class, as well as rereading it, I learned that a major contribution to Easter Island's downfall was their abuse towards the land. Contrary to what was said in my original response, the Easter Islanders were not as cooperative with the land as I have claimed. In fact, they are quite the opposite. Although, the Easter Islands did use rock gardens, which I described as a method for them to work with nature." they approached the land, particularly the trees, in a way that ultimately led to their destruction. I found that what I said in the previous blog was a lie. This is due to the fact that the Easter Islanders are that that different from us. They cut down all the trees and eliminated their resources for their cultural values. And in the same way, America slowly destroys the Earth through industrialization in order to fulfill our cultural value, money. And as some of us read this book, thinking "Wow, they must have been ignorant to cut down all those trees for such an arbitrary cause" and wondering "Who carved the statues, why did they carve them at such effort, how did the carvers transport and raise such huge stone masses, and why did they eventually throw them all down?" (1), we can do the same as we look into the civilization that we have in America.
[Edit]:
While reading this chapter, I couldn't help but compare these stone statues to our money system. They are directly parallel in a sense that both of these objects reflect upon an individual's position and power over others within a society. People strive to obtain both of these objects as a symbol of wealth, power and self-importance. In addition, these things require a lot of labor to produce, which comes hand-in-hand with required resources to fuel it. However, in the end the stone statues will not provide us with what is necessary to survive, and neither will money. It seems that in both of our societies, we are spending our resources and time on such questionable objectives. And in both of our societies, it would appear that we have a mentality that resembles this statement: "All right, so you can erect a statue 30 feet high, but look at me: I can put this 12-ton pukao on top of my statue; you try to top that, you wimp!" (9).
[Edit]:
While reading this chapter, I couldn't help but compare these stone statues to our money system. They are directly parallel in a sense that both of these objects reflect upon an individual's position and power over others within a society. People strive to obtain both of these objects as a symbol of wealth, power and self-importance. In addition, these things require a lot of labor to produce, which comes hand-in-hand with required resources to fuel it. However, in the end the stone statues will not provide us with what is necessary to survive, and neither will money. It seems that in both of our societies, we are spending our resources and time on such questionable objectives. And in both of our societies, it would appear that we have a mentality that resembles this statement: "All right, so you can erect a statue 30 feet high, but look at me: I can put this 12-ton pukao on top of my statue; you try to top that, you wimp!" (9).
Monday, June 8, 2009
Twilight at Easter [Original Draft]
Just based on this chapter, there are some quite noticeable similarities and differences between the society we live in today and the society that was once present on Easter Island. One obvious difference would be the rock farms. As stated in its name, rock farms are farms involve the use of rocks, which were placed on top of soil while growing crops. The purpose of this was to not allow the moisture to escape the soil, as well as attract more heat. One difference in this would be that in America, we do not have rock farms, nor would we need it. For now, each farm has more than enough water, whether that be from rain (another difference between America and Easter Island) or from their money. Heat is also not an issue for us. Whenever there isn't enough or too much, that can be solved by a light bulb, or by simply choosing another crop to grow. The existence of rock farms points out that, while other civilizations, past or present, adjust to nature and its resources, we make nature adjust to us and neglect it when that isn't an option. On this topic, it was quite interesting to see that even when a society takes works with nature and makes decent use of it, it can still crumble. Jared Diamond says that even then, the resources were being exploited, but perhaps it also has to do with how their resources are spent. The fall of this civilization (as well as, the last paragraph of this chapter) led me wondering how much longer can we last, being that we are a country that exhausts the land and carry on wasteful actions.
While reading this chapter, I couldn't help but compare these stone statues to almost everything we value in our society (e.g. money, cars, big houses, etc). These things require a lot of labor to produce, which comes hand-in-hand with required resources to fuel it. However, in the end the stone statues will not provide us with what is necessary to survive, and neither will money. It seems that in both of our societies, we are spending our resources and time on such questionable objectives, that I would say, leads to a meaningless life (if not, even lower than that). In our lives, we like to say that we earned something valuable and accomplished something great. We only see that as greatness because we made it so. But what exactly are we doing with our lives outside of society, and into the world?
While reading this chapter, I couldn't help but compare these stone statues to almost everything we value in our society (e.g. money, cars, big houses, etc). These things require a lot of labor to produce, which comes hand-in-hand with required resources to fuel it. However, in the end the stone statues will not provide us with what is necessary to survive, and neither will money. It seems that in both of our societies, we are spending our resources and time on such questionable objectives, that I would say, leads to a meaningless life (if not, even lower than that). In our lives, we like to say that we earned something valuable and accomplished something great. We only see that as greatness because we made it so. But what exactly are we doing with our lives outside of society, and into the world?
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Good Eats [Big Paper]
Countless times have I said, “Yo I’m hungry. I want something to eat.” I sought for food whenever my body felt weary, because of its calories and its ability to rejuvenate its consumer. And it would not be foolish to assume that most of America does the same. Rarely, do we view food as something pleasurable, rather than something necessary for survival; both of which are true. This alienation of Americans and the food we eat, I would say, is the result of our disconnection with nature. Our view of the world around us is directly correlated with our food-ways and our view of our foods.
“Ask one of those eaters where their steak or soda comes from and she’ll tell you ‘the supermarket’”(Pollan, 34-35). As depicted by this quote from The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Americans go around not knowing, nor wondering where our foods come from. Whenever we think of the place to get food, we simply think of a supermarket. In America, the vast majority does not gather their own food from the Earth. Instead, we exchange green pieces of paper for the sources of energy for our bodies that represent an “equivalent value.” We do not wish to understand how exactly nature provides these resources nor understand the process that the food went through to be placed in our refrigerators. We do not wish to grow our own foods from the Earth nor make the effort to create something meaningful within our foods. That is because, as Jared Diamond says, “We get our energy from oil and machines, not from our sweat.” Americans do not work with nature for their foods, and therefore do not appreciate food as much.
Being that we get our foods from the supermarket, our foods come from corporations through mass productions of each particular food. And of course, being that corporations are corporations, their ultimate goal is maximized profit. Our food has been industrialized for the convenience of the people and the pockets of the big businessmen. Within any industry, “profit is the name of the game,” as said in the Meatrix. And to the food industry, nature is just what produces the pieces necessary to win this game. In order to maximize their profits, any industry feels it is necessary to take advantage their access to nature. Thus technology, such as GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) , are used. In the case of corn production, having a “higher yield” is the goal of using technology. "The higher yield of modern hybrids stems mainly from the fact that they can be planted so close together, thirty thousand to the acre instead of eight thousand in his father's days" (Pollan, 37). By having a higher yield, the farmer is able to take advantage of the land that he has, and is able to maximizing his profit off of something other than himself.It allows the mass productions of different foods and the exhaustion of any resource the Earth provides to each individual farm. The perspective of the “producers” of our foods on the Earth we live on is that it is a source of wealth. And to the farmers, food would to be nothing more than their income.
Within America, there has always been an artificial separation between “humans” and “animals.” This separation causes the alienation of humans from nature, which will lead to the alienation of humans from their food. Between humans and animals, humans particularly the ones found on the land labelled as America views themselves as the more superior. According to my mother, whatever beings that has its back facing the sky is meant to be eaten by humans. It has always been man versus nature.The music video for “The Cows with Guns,” depicts this exact differentiation. We do not accept the fact that we are part of nature, and are animals as well. By neglecting this fact, we neglect our animalistic instincts to hunt and gather. Instead, we turn to what Jared Diamond calls, “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race,” agriculture. Just as we have domesticated crops and animals, humans have also taken control of nature itself for the mass-production of various commodities. And as we all know, this mass production ultimately leads to the packaged-foods which we, the people purchase and use to rejuvenate our bodies, without ever wondering the whole process of how the food ended up in our stomachs. Separating ourselves from animals, we never strive to have a direct connection with nature through the foods we eat. Therefore, nature and food will always remain as another alienated aspect of life that humans will never get to truly experience.
As we continue to disregard nature, we will continue to mindlessly eat our plastic-sealed foods, never quite understanding the full pleasure of real food. As humans, we do not work with nature so that both will have a sustainable lifestyle. Humans will continue to use nature as object to gain pieces of paper that were created by nature. Our instincts as animals will continue to be neglected, as we drift further away from our ancestry. And we will continue to eat GMO’s that have been purchased in the supermarket, and inflict the downfall of both humans and nature. Meanwhile, nature will continue to be depreciated and exhausted by the beings that it surrounds. It’s whole existence will continue to be reduced down to figments, which provides a sense of “value.” The alienation between humans and nature has resulted in the alienation of our foods. However, if we were to become more intact with nature (and possibly produce our own foods), the alienation of our foods would gradually decline as well. We will begin to understand that our foodway- the consumption of food, the interpretation of food, the non-numeric value that we give our foods, the production of food- is wrong. As results that come hand-in-hand with this comprehension, humans will end animal cruelty, the Earth will possibly live past the year 2100, a greater appreciation for food will be achieved, and New Yorkers can pick food from Central Park without being pulled over by a park ranger. But for now, food will remain as how "Our Daily Bread" portrays it: a long and boring process that we go through in order to survive in both this world, and in our society.
“Ask one of those eaters where their steak or soda comes from and she’ll tell you ‘the supermarket’”(Pollan, 34-35). As depicted by this quote from The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Americans go around not knowing, nor wondering where our foods come from. Whenever we think of the place to get food, we simply think of a supermarket. In America, the vast majority does not gather their own food from the Earth. Instead, we exchange green pieces of paper for the sources of energy for our bodies that represent an “equivalent value.” We do not wish to understand how exactly nature provides these resources nor understand the process that the food went through to be placed in our refrigerators. We do not wish to grow our own foods from the Earth nor make the effort to create something meaningful within our foods. That is because, as Jared Diamond says, “We get our energy from oil and machines, not from our sweat.” Americans do not work with nature for their foods, and therefore do not appreciate food as much.
Being that we get our foods from the supermarket, our foods come from corporations through mass productions of each particular food. And of course, being that corporations are corporations, their ultimate goal is maximized profit. Our food has been industrialized for the convenience of the people and the pockets of the big businessmen. Within any industry, “profit is the name of the game,” as said in the Meatrix. And to the food industry, nature is just what produces the pieces necessary to win this game. In order to maximize their profits, any industry feels it is necessary to take advantage their access to nature. Thus technology, such as GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) , are used. In the case of corn production, having a “higher yield” is the goal of using technology. "The higher yield of modern hybrids stems mainly from the fact that they can be planted so close together, thirty thousand to the acre instead of eight thousand in his father's days" (Pollan, 37). By having a higher yield, the farmer is able to take advantage of the land that he has, and is able to maximizing his profit off of something other than himself.It allows the mass productions of different foods and the exhaustion of any resource the Earth provides to each individual farm. The perspective of the “producers” of our foods on the Earth we live on is that it is a source of wealth. And to the farmers, food would to be nothing more than their income.
Within America, there has always been an artificial separation between “humans” and “animals.” This separation causes the alienation of humans from nature, which will lead to the alienation of humans from their food. Between humans and animals, humans particularly the ones found on the land labelled as America views themselves as the more superior. According to my mother, whatever beings that has its back facing the sky is meant to be eaten by humans. It has always been man versus nature.The music video for “The Cows with Guns,” depicts this exact differentiation. We do not accept the fact that we are part of nature, and are animals as well. By neglecting this fact, we neglect our animalistic instincts to hunt and gather. Instead, we turn to what Jared Diamond calls, “The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race,” agriculture. Just as we have domesticated crops and animals, humans have also taken control of nature itself for the mass-production of various commodities. And as we all know, this mass production ultimately leads to the packaged-foods which we, the people purchase and use to rejuvenate our bodies, without ever wondering the whole process of how the food ended up in our stomachs. Separating ourselves from animals, we never strive to have a direct connection with nature through the foods we eat. Therefore, nature and food will always remain as another alienated aspect of life that humans will never get to truly experience.
As we continue to disregard nature, we will continue to mindlessly eat our plastic-sealed foods, never quite understanding the full pleasure of real food. As humans, we do not work with nature so that both will have a sustainable lifestyle. Humans will continue to use nature as object to gain pieces of paper that were created by nature. Our instincts as animals will continue to be neglected, as we drift further away from our ancestry. And we will continue to eat GMO’s that have been purchased in the supermarket, and inflict the downfall of both humans and nature. Meanwhile, nature will continue to be depreciated and exhausted by the beings that it surrounds. It’s whole existence will continue to be reduced down to figments, which provides a sense of “value.” The alienation between humans and nature has resulted in the alienation of our foods. However, if we were to become more intact with nature (and possibly produce our own foods), the alienation of our foods would gradually decline as well. We will begin to understand that our foodway- the consumption of food, the interpretation of food, the non-numeric value that we give our foods, the production of food- is wrong. As results that come hand-in-hand with this comprehension, humans will end animal cruelty, the Earth will possibly live past the year 2100, a greater appreciation for food will be achieved, and New Yorkers can pick food from Central Park without being pulled over by a park ranger. But for now, food will remain as how "Our Daily Bread" portrays it: a long and boring process that we go through in order to survive in both this world, and in our society.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Wildman Trip
This was my first encounter with source of food in Central Park. Normally, I would have walked right past this, thinking it was a weed. However once I tasted this, my mind was suddenly opened. It had such a unique flavor of: lettuce-like, then minty, then spicy, that I was then looking out for whatever else could be ingested as food. I also noticed that there weren't much of this particular plant, which I would guess is why this is not as common as all the other vegetables we see in supermarkets. It was scattered around one plot of field, indicating that it does not have a high yield. Therefore it would not be as profitable for farmers to produce.
These were the leaves that could be used as tea leaves. Judging from first impressions, this plant seems like it is a tree. However Wildman Steve immediately clarified that it does have a truck. Therefore it was not a tree ("nor an elephant"). When I got home, I tried to make tea by using 10 of these leaves. It's flavor wasn't something that I was quite familiar with, and I would not necessarily crave for it. Now that I've become aware of this (after many years of predominately eating familiar foods), I was wondering whether or not corn has something to do with this. According to Michael Pollan, every complex food in our culture can be broken down to one ingredient: corn. So many all of the foods we purchase in supermarkets and restaurants are foods we like because it has that slight familiar taste of corn.
This was one of the plants that I did not want to be involved with, because next to it was another plant named "white snake," which was lethal to eat. I would say that this is the complete opposite of American food, simply because of its inconvenience. First, this plant needs to ripe at certain time of the year, otherwise it would not be tasty at all. Second, it was the next to the "white snake." A person would need to be well-educated about all sorts of plants, before they would attempt to walk around Central Park, picking out foods. Of course, this can be easily solved by reading a few books. Although that is the case, it is not quite easier than to just walk into a supermarket and reading the labels.
This was another plant that was dangerous. Wildman Steve told us that there are three ways you can die from this particular plant. And those are: if you eat the wrong part, if you cook it the wrong way, or if you pick it at the wrong time of the year. In a way, this plant demonstrates a benefit of industrialization. When people go to supermarkets to purchase their foods, they hardly have to worry about dying from the foods they are about to pay for. On the other hand, these foods are still killing us; just that it is not an immediate result.
This plant was also the plant that one of the other people climbed over the fence to pick. It just happened that a park ranger was driving by and saw her. The ranger then told her to discontinue this natural collection of food, because food can only be supplied by artificial buildings with artificial stuff in it.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Industrial Food
In the Obama's Agricultural Policy article, the author says, "some of us were hoping that Obama would push for a new economy built on widely accessible healthy and sustainable food." And that is what we've been and always will be doing, on the topic of food. Right now, we are hoping that Obama will do something that will improve America, more specifically how Americans eat and the types of food they spend their money on. We are waiting for someone to push a better lifestyle towards us, and someone to push food onto our plates. We are waiting for someone to enforce something that we, or at least some of us, know is better; rather than, making the change ourselves. Even now, this is shown by the way we eat. All three daily meals of a typical American involves someone presenting the food to the person, whether that be the mother, the waiter, or the big corporations that run every other aspect of life. The way we treat our food is similar to the way we treat any policy. And while, we are waiting for Obama to "push for a new economy built on widely accessible healthy and sustainable food," we will be waiting on line in the local supermarket, to pay for our synthetic food.
Michael Pollan appeared on the Colbert Report, talking about defending food from the food corporations. Food, the natural restoration for our bodies, is being converted into profit by corporations. And Colbert's response (most likely representing all of America's response) was to defend the food that we eat now because of "deliciousness." People do not know about the foods we eat, therefore we think that there's nothing wrong with it and do not believe that there is a need for change. The way that Colbert responded led me to connect him to Leo from "The Meatrix II: Revolting." Leo saw the dairy farm as this nice family farm, where the cows are in good living conditions. And similarly, that is how Americans see farms as well. This painted image in our minds tell us that there's nothing wrong and everything is just fine. However, just like The Meatrix has shown, the farms have been industrialized, and are actually revolving around profit rather than the cows or the food they provide. By not seeing this, everyone continues on living their current lifestyle and defending the corporations and foods that are doing us harm, as shown by Colbert.
Michael Pollan appeared on the Colbert Report, talking about defending food from the food corporations. Food, the natural restoration for our bodies, is being converted into profit by corporations. And Colbert's response (most likely representing all of America's response) was to defend the food that we eat now because of "deliciousness." People do not know about the foods we eat, therefore we think that there's nothing wrong with it and do not believe that there is a need for change. The way that Colbert responded led me to connect him to Leo from "The Meatrix II: Revolting." Leo saw the dairy farm as this nice family farm, where the cows are in good living conditions. And similarly, that is how Americans see farms as well. This painted image in our minds tell us that there's nothing wrong and everything is just fine. However, just like The Meatrix has shown, the farms have been industrialized, and are actually revolving around profit rather than the cows or the food they provide. By not seeing this, everyone continues on living their current lifestyle and defending the corporations and foods that are doing us harm, as shown by Colbert.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Recipe- [Edit: Picture&Response Added]
INGREDIENTS
* 4 cups plus 2 tablespoons half-and-half
* 1/2 cup granulated sugar
* 4 large egg yolks
* 1 1/2 tablespoons tapioca starch or cornstarch
* 2 cups red bean paste
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Pour the 4 cups half-and-half into the top of a double boiler over medium heat.
2. Meanwhile, whisk together the sugar and egg yolks in a bowl until the yolks turn thick and pale. Temper the yolks by gradually adding the hot half-and-half mixture a cup at a time while whisking vigorously so as not to scramble the eggs.
3. Return the mixture to the top part of the double boiler and whisk over simmering water until slightly thickened and heated through, 10 to 15 minutes. Dilute the tapioca starch with the remaining 2 tablespoons half-and-half and add it to the mixture. Continue whisking to a custard consistency that coats the back of a spoon, about 2 minutes. Transfer the custard to a heatproof bowl and whisk in the red bean paste. Set over an ice bath and refrigerate overnight (or at least 12 hours).
4. The next day, pour the custard into an ice cream maker and process the custard according to the manufacturer’s instructions, 30 to 35 minutes. Transfer the ice cream to a container and freeze until ready to serve. [Link]
Responses:
* 4 cups plus 2 tablespoons half-and-half
* 1/2 cup granulated sugar
* 4 large egg yolks
* 1 1/2 tablespoons tapioca starch or cornstarch
* 2 cups red bean paste
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Pour the 4 cups half-and-half into the top of a double boiler over medium heat.
2. Meanwhile, whisk together the sugar and egg yolks in a bowl until the yolks turn thick and pale. Temper the yolks by gradually adding the hot half-and-half mixture a cup at a time while whisking vigorously so as not to scramble the eggs.
3. Return the mixture to the top part of the double boiler and whisk over simmering water until slightly thickened and heated through, 10 to 15 minutes. Dilute the tapioca starch with the remaining 2 tablespoons half-and-half and add it to the mixture. Continue whisking to a custard consistency that coats the back of a spoon, about 2 minutes. Transfer the custard to a heatproof bowl and whisk in the red bean paste. Set over an ice bath and refrigerate overnight (or at least 12 hours).
4. The next day, pour the custard into an ice cream maker and process the custard according to the manufacturer’s instructions, 30 to 35 minutes. Transfer the ice cream to a container and freeze until ready to serve. [Link]
Responses:
In order to follow this recipe, I had to go to the supermarket to specifically buy the ingredients. I did not have any cornstarch or half-and-half in my house, because my family hardly uses it. But I found it surprising that I needed all of these ingredients, since my mother makes a similar desert, but she only uses 2 of the 5 ingredients listed (red bean and sugar). Yet, I liked my mother's version a lot more. While I was making this, my mother was irritated by the fact that there was much ingredients and labor involved. She asked me why I had to take such exact measurements, and told me to go with my gut feeling. This recipe also required a double-boiler, which I had no clue to what it was. But I looked it up on Google, and found that it can be replaced by a dish on top of a regular pot. Overall, I think that this was far more complicated that it needs to be, and my mother would agree. There were added steps and ingredients that did not need to take place, and the same taste would have been accomplished.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Chapter 2: The Farm
In this chapter, I felt that there was one particular quote Pollan included, that articulated what I have recently began to think about the world. This quote, by Naylor goes: "They're messing with three billion years of evolution"(36). In here, Naylor was talking about planting GMOs, which are "genetically modified organisms." People are planting altered seeds to grow hybrid plants, so that they can maximize the amount of corn being produced. But I think that this quote also applies to many other aspects in life. Industrialization has taken over everything that is natural. Everything that has been provided by the Earth is being taken over by the businesses and their need to earn more green paper. (e.g. Two units ago, we saw that hospitals and normal births drew people away from natural births). It is as though people with money are taking property of all the natural resources, and are altering it into a form that eventually evolves into more money. As Naylor said, "they're messing with three billion years of evolution."
After reading this chapter, I take on a new perspective of farmers. I have always viewed farmers as the hardworking people that allows everyone to eat carelessly. I always saw them as those who are untouched by industrialization because they deal with the Earth. But now I learn that they aren't any different from any business owner. Following Pollan to a farm run by George Naylor, through his book, we see the commonalities between farms and big corporations, both of which control majority of how we live our lives. In a farm, having a "high yield" is significant to making maximum profit. "The higher yield of modern hybrids stems mainly from the fact that they can be planted so close together, thirty thousand to the acre instead of eight thousand in his father's days" (37). By having a higher yield, the farmer is able to take advantage of the land that he has, and is able to maximizing his profit off of something other than himself. So while the farmers abuse the Earth, everyone else abuses the workers to make more money for themselves. My previous thought of farmers being hardworking was also proven wrong, in that they don't do much besides sitting around spreading seeds through a vehicle ("the field George and I planted that day would produce 1.8 million pounds of corn. Not bad for a day's work sitting down..."(36)).
Questions
1. On page 44 Pollan wrote, "Haber's story embodies the paradoxes of science: the double edge to our manipulation of nature, the good and evil that can flow not only from the same man but the same knowledge. Haber brought a vital new source of fertility and an awful new weapon into the world..."
Do you think that the usages of nitrogen and fossil fuel on crops are more beneficial than harmful, or vice-versa? Does the convenience outweigh the damage?
2. Naylor "has a gut distrust of the technology" (36), but aren't the seeds that he use, Pioneer Hi-Bred's 34H31 GMOs as well? Are the seeds, in any way, modified or altered before he bought them?
Comments on Other People's Blogs
John's "The omnivore's Dilemma Chapter 2"
In your second paragraph, you asked why we, the outnumbering "regular citizens," do not overthrow the farmers. The problem with this is that we need suppliers. If we overthrew all of the farmers, the whole system would collapse, which most people cannot handle or accept. Without corn, there will be less beef, and we all know we can't live without beef. Without corn, our soda will not be sweet, and we all know that we can't live without soda. The thing about "overthrowing" is that it will cause instability and nobody wants to contribute to it. We may be the group with the larger number, but only a small percentage will actually take action. If we can actually have everyone devote themselves to accomplishing one goal, farmers wouldn't be the only thing being overthrown.
Vincent's "optional assignment on Omnivore's Dilemma"
One thing that stood out to me was when you said, "Because of the break through of fertilizers and technology, it allows a farmer to produce a lot of corn and keep using the same land over and over again." The way that I interpreted, and possibly the way you meant it, was that you are assuming the land cannot reproduce crops on its own, without fertilizers and technology. The use of fertilizer and technology only began in the early 1900's when Fritz Haber discovered fossil fuels as a replacement for solar energy. I am pretty sure that the same land can be used over and over, even without the technology and fossil fuels, since it's been producing corn and other crops for billions of years, long before Haber was even born.
After reading this chapter, I take on a new perspective of farmers. I have always viewed farmers as the hardworking people that allows everyone to eat carelessly. I always saw them as those who are untouched by industrialization because they deal with the Earth. But now I learn that they aren't any different from any business owner. Following Pollan to a farm run by George Naylor, through his book, we see the commonalities between farms and big corporations, both of which control majority of how we live our lives. In a farm, having a "high yield" is significant to making maximum profit. "The higher yield of modern hybrids stems mainly from the fact that they can be planted so close together, thirty thousand to the acre instead of eight thousand in his father's days" (37). By having a higher yield, the farmer is able to take advantage of the land that he has, and is able to maximizing his profit off of something other than himself. So while the farmers abuse the Earth, everyone else abuses the workers to make more money for themselves. My previous thought of farmers being hardworking was also proven wrong, in that they don't do much besides sitting around spreading seeds through a vehicle ("the field George and I planted that day would produce 1.8 million pounds of corn. Not bad for a day's work sitting down..."(36)).
Questions
1. On page 44 Pollan wrote, "Haber's story embodies the paradoxes of science: the double edge to our manipulation of nature, the good and evil that can flow not only from the same man but the same knowledge. Haber brought a vital new source of fertility and an awful new weapon into the world..."
Do you think that the usages of nitrogen and fossil fuel on crops are more beneficial than harmful, or vice-versa? Does the convenience outweigh the damage?
2. Naylor "has a gut distrust of the technology" (36), but aren't the seeds that he use, Pioneer Hi-Bred's 34H31 GMOs as well? Are the seeds, in any way, modified or altered before he bought them?
Comments on Other People's Blogs
John's "The omnivore's Dilemma Chapter 2"
In your second paragraph, you asked why we, the outnumbering "regular citizens," do not overthrow the farmers. The problem with this is that we need suppliers. If we overthrew all of the farmers, the whole system would collapse, which most people cannot handle or accept. Without corn, there will be less beef, and we all know we can't live without beef. Without corn, our soda will not be sweet, and we all know that we can't live without soda. The thing about "overthrowing" is that it will cause instability and nobody wants to contribute to it. We may be the group with the larger number, but only a small percentage will actually take action. If we can actually have everyone devote themselves to accomplishing one goal, farmers wouldn't be the only thing being overthrown.
Vincent's "optional assignment on Omnivore's Dilemma"
One thing that stood out to me was when you said, "Because of the break through of fertilizers and technology, it allows a farmer to produce a lot of corn and keep using the same land over and over again." The way that I interpreted, and possibly the way you meant it, was that you are assuming the land cannot reproduce crops on its own, without fertilizers and technology. The use of fertilizer and technology only began in the early 1900's when Fritz Haber discovered fossil fuels as a replacement for solar energy. I am pretty sure that the same land can be used over and over, even without the technology and fossil fuels, since it's been producing corn and other crops for billions of years, long before Haber was even born.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Blog Responses
Russell's "Pollan Reponce"
I definitely agree with what you said about the "people before us." I feel like we make things a lot more complicated than they need to be. And if the people in the past generations did not need all of this "stuff" and still maintained a good, if not better, lifestyle, then why do we need it?
Also, the comic that you included may seem like a joke, but it definitely says something about our lifestyles. People think that by eating less, or none at all, then they will lose weight. Bringing back to the people before, I know that my parents or any other older relatives from China have ever said that they were purposely going to skip a meal to lose weight. Yet, none of them are extremely fat. So maybe, there is alternative to not eating and losing weight. Who knows?
Maggie's "Response to Quote"
I would reconsider stating that this quote does not apply to you, because it is not necessarily saying that you eat according to what is healthy. Rather Pollan is saying that our diets depend on expert help, whether that be someone telling us what foods are nutritious and what are not, or what is flavorful. It may seem that you eat based on what you want to eat, but there must have been some sort of past influence from expert help. (You wouldn't go around drinking a gallon of oil, at once, because you know that it's bad for you. And you know that based on what you hear from others. Eventually those "others" will be somehow connected to some sort of expert).
Ben's "Exhibition week homework"
Very simple recipe. Hopefully most people can follow this as well, if they already haven't. I especially like that it is a recipe that gives you options. Nowadays, everything else requires precision.
Karl's "What's In My Fridge"
Does your family not eat after dinner because of the 2-hour rule*? I also found it interesting when you wrote "shrimp with pasta." I probably would have said "pasta with shrimp," if I would actually find pasta in my refrigerator to begin with.
*Anything you eat within 2 hours before sleeping will not be digested and remain in your system.
I definitely agree with what you said about the "people before us." I feel like we make things a lot more complicated than they need to be. And if the people in the past generations did not need all of this "stuff" and still maintained a good, if not better, lifestyle, then why do we need it?
Also, the comic that you included may seem like a joke, but it definitely says something about our lifestyles. People think that by eating less, or none at all, then they will lose weight. Bringing back to the people before, I know that my parents or any other older relatives from China have ever said that they were purposely going to skip a meal to lose weight. Yet, none of them are extremely fat. So maybe, there is alternative to not eating and losing weight. Who knows?
Maggie's "Response to Quote"
I would reconsider stating that this quote does not apply to you, because it is not necessarily saying that you eat according to what is healthy. Rather Pollan is saying that our diets depend on expert help, whether that be someone telling us what foods are nutritious and what are not, or what is flavorful. It may seem that you eat based on what you want to eat, but there must have been some sort of past influence from expert help. (You wouldn't go around drinking a gallon of oil, at once, because you know that it's bad for you. And you know that based on what you hear from others. Eventually those "others" will be somehow connected to some sort of expert).
Ben's "Exhibition week homework"
Very simple recipe. Hopefully most people can follow this as well, if they already haven't. I especially like that it is a recipe that gives you options. Nowadays, everything else requires precision.
Karl's "What's In My Fridge"
Does your family not eat after dinner because of the 2-hour rule*? I also found it interesting when you wrote "shrimp with pasta." I probably would have said "pasta with shrimp," if I would actually find pasta in my refrigerator to begin with.
*Anything you eat within 2 hours before sleeping will not be digested and remain in your system.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
The Omnivore's Dilemma
"Whatever native wisdom we may once have possessed about eating has been replaced by confusion and anxiety. Somehow this most elemental of activities- figuring out what to eat- has come to require a remarkable amount of expert help" (Michael Pollan, 1)
I believe that this statement is correct and would apply to many people in this people in country, including myself. People are constantly reading and researching about the types of foods they should and should not eat. Most people eat according to what the experts say, and what they say is beneficial for us, which may not always be true. The words of the experts completely dominate the foods found in our refrigerators. I would also add that, in some cases, the objective of researching is not to shape the our diets, rather it acts as a green light for people to eat the things that we know is bad. If the experts say that eating certain foods would be beneficial (or at least, not as bad), then people will go ahead and eat it. Our diets are completely dependent on what strangers tell us.
On the bigger picture, the foods that I eat are influenced by experts. Most of the time I eat whatever I choose to eat, but I know that subconsciously that choice is affected by things I have heard in the past. I never purposely read about or look up what experts have to say about eating different types of food, but they still have an impact of what I eat. The decisions I make about the foods I eat, are affected by the nutrition and ingredients of food, both of which have been established by experts. Every time I eat, I am concerned about how this will affect me after the meal, whether it be beneficiary or something I would have to work off.
I personally do not follow any food experts, but my mom does. She reads Chinese magazines that come with the weekend newspaper. And within those magazines, there are various writers talking about different foods having hidden benefits. They provide many tips about eating certain foods to have a certain effect (e.g. skin care, digestion, etc.), and of course my mom listens to it. Every other week, she is trying something that the magazines said. She is currently following the cucumber-fad. Other than that, my family doesn't really anything else, in terms of food experts.
I believe that this statement is correct and would apply to many people in this people in country, including myself. People are constantly reading and researching about the types of foods they should and should not eat. Most people eat according to what the experts say, and what they say is beneficial for us, which may not always be true. The words of the experts completely dominate the foods found in our refrigerators. I would also add that, in some cases, the objective of researching is not to shape the our diets, rather it acts as a green light for people to eat the things that we know is bad. If the experts say that eating certain foods would be beneficial (or at least, not as bad), then people will go ahead and eat it. Our diets are completely dependent on what strangers tell us.
On the bigger picture, the foods that I eat are influenced by experts. Most of the time I eat whatever I choose to eat, but I know that subconsciously that choice is affected by things I have heard in the past. I never purposely read about or look up what experts have to say about eating different types of food, but they still have an impact of what I eat. The decisions I make about the foods I eat, are affected by the nutrition and ingredients of food, both of which have been established by experts. Every time I eat, I am concerned about how this will affect me after the meal, whether it be beneficiary or something I would have to work off.
I personally do not follow any food experts, but my mom does. She reads Chinese magazines that come with the weekend newspaper. And within those magazines, there are various writers talking about different foods having hidden benefits. They provide many tips about eating certain foods to have a certain effect (e.g. skin care, digestion, etc.), and of course my mom listens to it. Every other week, she is trying something that the magazines said. She is currently following the cucumber-fad. Other than that, my family doesn't really anything else, in terms of food experts.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
AWOF- Andy's(family) Way of (eating) Food
In terms of vegetables, roots and grains, my family consumes massive amounts of it. Every meal that I have with my family would have these two things incorporated in it. The vegetables would often be bok choy, celery, carrots, Chinese cabbage, and a lot more stuff that I just eat and not know the name of. The roots are mainly just ginger and potatoes. And the grains would just be rice, or noodle...or rice noodle. My mom have always liked cooking different things everyday, and hardly ever cooks the same thing two days in a row. But I think it's mostly because of the flavor rather than the nutrition factor. Regardless, I've always had a well-balanced diet, as far as my dinner is concerned. However, dinner is only one of the two meals that I have per day. Lunch, for me, would seem less balance since I eat school lunch. There seems to be a lack of vegetables and fruits. And as of roots and grains, it's in the form of heated-up, pre-frozen burger and "fries." Even though the food does not taste as good, or is also nutritious for me, I do not mind it too much. It fills me up when I am hungry, and I can go upstairs, where I can play Chinese poker everyday. (However, if the people upstairs weren't playing Chinese poker, I think diet for lunch would be something completely different).
For my family, our meals and food do not seem as dramatically affected as the typical American. I think that is because, we mainly buy our food from Mott Street, Chinatown, where it is not the typical supermarket. There isn't one big market (well, there are two but we choose not to shop there) where you can get everything you want. Instead, we go to many different stores and look for the things that my mom plans on cooking for us throughout the week. During the car ride there, I would hear her and my dad discussing about things that need to be bought, so I don't think the markets "push" everything into our refrigerator, but it does have some effect. By that I mean, if there is food that we eat on occasions, and that is cheap, my mom would buy it; thus creating the occasions. Even so, I think that my family eats in a style that seems a bit more flexible. We do eat rice every night, but there has never been a set of food that we eat. In my family, my mom just cooks what she has or what she wants, and we just eat it. And it just so happens that it has a lot of variety, compared to other people in the class.
For my family, our meals and food do not seem as dramatically affected as the typical American. I think that is because, we mainly buy our food from Mott Street, Chinatown, where it is not the typical supermarket. There isn't one big market (well, there are two but we choose not to shop there) where you can get everything you want. Instead, we go to many different stores and look for the things that my mom plans on cooking for us throughout the week. During the car ride there, I would hear her and my dad discussing about things that need to be bought, so I don't think the markets "push" everything into our refrigerator, but it does have some effect. By that I mean, if there is food that we eat on occasions, and that is cheap, my mom would buy it; thus creating the occasions. Even so, I think that my family eats in a style that seems a bit more flexible. We do eat rice every night, but there has never been a set of food that we eat. In my family, my mom just cooks what she has or what she wants, and we just eat it. And it just so happens that it has a lot of variety, compared to other people in the class.
Monday, May 4, 2009
May Day
I will admit that, I have never understood nor attempted to understand May Day or why it is a holiday until Friday's class. I also believe that no one in my family knows what that is as well, which kind of shows that this holiday isn't acknowledged enough to be spread around. Then again, you can just blame it on my ignorance. However, the fact that very few people know or care about this holiday is very surprising to me, especially when majority of America is working class. This is one of the few(if not, the only) holidays that actually works towards one goal, and better working conditions. But regardless, people still choose to only celebrate the holidays that their beliefs and imagination lead them to celebrate.
The compromise created as a result of the May day protests connects to the whole health care system in America. I previously stated in my health care paper that, people will settle down for less out of fear for losing everything. So in this case, the workers settle down for a few days off , and forgot about the better working conditions throughout the whole year. It almost seems like the bosses and the "upper-class" are baiting the workers with something that is of much smaller proportions.
If I knew more, I would make this statement: Settling down never works out. In the end, the benefits still go towards the people who are already sitting there, collecting money. But people need to realize that they would not be sitting there if the workers were not busting their asses working. They need to realize that the boss needs the workers more than the workers need the boss.
The compromise created as a result of the May day protests connects to the whole health care system in America. I previously stated in my health care paper that, people will settle down for less out of fear for losing everything. So in this case, the workers settle down for a few days off , and forgot about the better working conditions throughout the whole year. It almost seems like the bosses and the "upper-class" are baiting the workers with something that is of much smaller proportions.
If I knew more, I would make this statement: Settling down never works out. In the end, the benefits still go towards the people who are already sitting there, collecting money. But people need to realize that they would not be sitting there if the workers were not busting their asses working. They need to realize that the boss needs the workers more than the workers need the boss.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Food Journal
Tuesday Dinner (~9:30)Two Bowls of Rice, Pork with Cauliflower, Soup
During this night, I came home later than usual and found that my parents had already eaten dinner without me. However they did leave me with a lot of food, which I did not get to finish and sealed up to put into the refrigerator. Just like every other night, I had soup first and for that night it potato/carrot/pork bone soup. After I was done with that, I went to get a bowl of rice and ate that with the pork with cauliflower, using chopsticks like always. After I was done with that first bowl, I went to get a second bowl, because that night I was especially hungry. As I got the second bowl, I felt a slight sense of boredom so I went to play with my cat, which lasted about 2 minutes before I continued my second bowl of rice. Once again, I ate solely from the dish of pork with cauliflower, and completely neglected the fish that was also there, because I felt that it would have been too troublesome to spit out all the bones. Throughout the whole time, I felt kind of rushed because I wanted to get ready to go to bed since I came home so late. I also did not have the normal discussions that I had with my parents. I think it was partially due to the fact that they were already warped into their Chinese drama. As I was getting ready to sleep, I was thinking about the food staying in my system. I've heard previously that if you sleep within 2 hours after eating, you will not be able to digest the food more effectively which got me conscious for a while until I just said "Oh well."
Wednesday Breakfast (Never)Nothing
I usually do not eat breakfast because I think I've conditioned myself long enough that my body feels as though I do not eat it, because obviously I'm not hungry in the morning. So if I did eat breakfast, I feel like I am force-feeding myself and get full within the first two bites. And even though I do not normally eat breakfast, my mother insisted that I ate some bread, which I just ignored. But before I left school, I did take a bottle of Poland Spring water with me to school, so that I had something to drink whenever my mouth was dry or I was bored.
Wednesday Lunch (12:30~1:20)School Lunch: Meatballs, Milk, Fries
Like always, I get extremely hungry around 10 or 11 o'clock. And like always I look forward to lunch. But as I was eating lunch, I wasn't really paying attention to the food. I was just poking at my food with a plastic fork, hoping to get something on it, as I was working on my exhibition. But that soon ended, when Daniel, Dinorah and Quinn decided to take out the cards and play Chinese Poker. At that point, I was eating in between rounds. After lunch ended, I had no thought about lunch, rather I was wishing that we would have played one or two more rounds of Chinese Poker.
Wednesday Snack (~5:00pm)Ice Cream Bar
During this time, I was working on my exhibition and became extremely bored of typing. So I walked around my apartment, and once I passed by the refrigerator I opened it and took a look (this is a habit that I've developed before I even started going to school; the different colors found inside the refrigerator seems to brighten me up even when I'm not getting anything to eat). I found a few ice cream bars that my mom had bought, and took one to eat. I wasn't particularly hungry, just bored. So I took the ice cream bar into my room and ate it. As I was eating it, I was thinking about all the damage that the sugar and the coldness of the ice cream was doing to my teeth. I, then, looked at the label, and I saw that it had 1 gram of fiber, and thought "sweet, I'm getting my fibers." After I was done with it, I put the wrapper in a cup and felt very disappointed that it was already finished. I was thinking about getting another one, but then I thought, "it's going make me fat."
Wednesday Dinner (~Never)Nothing
This was one of the extremely rare occasions where I missed dinner. On this night, I feel asleep at around 8 o'clock. My mom made several attempts to wake me up, but I decided that I was more tired than hungry, so I continued to sleep for the next 11 hours. In the morning, I wasn't hungry and did not crave any food. But I did feel extremely tired, even after 11 hours of sleeping. And now that I think about it, it's been two nights in a row, where I did not have those endless discussions with my parents, which I miss. But surprisingly, I do not miss the feeling of properly sitting down and enjoying the food (if it was there to begin with).
During this night, I came home later than usual and found that my parents had already eaten dinner without me. However they did leave me with a lot of food, which I did not get to finish and sealed up to put into the refrigerator. Just like every other night, I had soup first and for that night it potato/carrot/pork bone soup. After I was done with that, I went to get a bowl of rice and ate that with the pork with cauliflower, using chopsticks like always. After I was done with that first bowl, I went to get a second bowl, because that night I was especially hungry. As I got the second bowl, I felt a slight sense of boredom so I went to play with my cat, which lasted about 2 minutes before I continued my second bowl of rice. Once again, I ate solely from the dish of pork with cauliflower, and completely neglected the fish that was also there, because I felt that it would have been too troublesome to spit out all the bones. Throughout the whole time, I felt kind of rushed because I wanted to get ready to go to bed since I came home so late. I also did not have the normal discussions that I had with my parents. I think it was partially due to the fact that they were already warped into their Chinese drama. As I was getting ready to sleep, I was thinking about the food staying in my system. I've heard previously that if you sleep within 2 hours after eating, you will not be able to digest the food more effectively which got me conscious for a while until I just said "Oh well."
Wednesday Breakfast (Never)Nothing
I usually do not eat breakfast because I think I've conditioned myself long enough that my body feels as though I do not eat it, because obviously I'm not hungry in the morning. So if I did eat breakfast, I feel like I am force-feeding myself and get full within the first two bites. And even though I do not normally eat breakfast, my mother insisted that I ate some bread, which I just ignored. But before I left school, I did take a bottle of Poland Spring water with me to school, so that I had something to drink whenever my mouth was dry or I was bored.
Wednesday Lunch (12:30~1:20)School Lunch: Meatballs, Milk, Fries
Like always, I get extremely hungry around 10 or 11 o'clock. And like always I look forward to lunch. But as I was eating lunch, I wasn't really paying attention to the food. I was just poking at my food with a plastic fork, hoping to get something on it, as I was working on my exhibition. But that soon ended, when Daniel, Dinorah and Quinn decided to take out the cards and play Chinese Poker. At that point, I was eating in between rounds. After lunch ended, I had no thought about lunch, rather I was wishing that we would have played one or two more rounds of Chinese Poker.
Wednesday Snack (~5:00pm)Ice Cream Bar
During this time, I was working on my exhibition and became extremely bored of typing. So I walked around my apartment, and once I passed by the refrigerator I opened it and took a look (this is a habit that I've developed before I even started going to school; the different colors found inside the refrigerator seems to brighten me up even when I'm not getting anything to eat). I found a few ice cream bars that my mom had bought, and took one to eat. I wasn't particularly hungry, just bored. So I took the ice cream bar into my room and ate it. As I was eating it, I was thinking about all the damage that the sugar and the coldness of the ice cream was doing to my teeth. I, then, looked at the label, and I saw that it had 1 gram of fiber, and thought "sweet, I'm getting my fibers." After I was done with it, I put the wrapper in a cup and felt very disappointed that it was already finished. I was thinking about getting another one, but then I thought, "it's going make me fat."
Wednesday Dinner (~Never)Nothing
This was one of the extremely rare occasions where I missed dinner. On this night, I feel asleep at around 8 o'clock. My mom made several attempts to wake me up, but I decided that I was more tired than hungry, so I continued to sleep for the next 11 hours. In the morning, I wasn't hungry and did not crave any food. But I did feel extremely tired, even after 11 hours of sleeping. And now that I think about it, it's been two nights in a row, where I did not have those endless discussions with my parents, which I miss. But surprisingly, I do not miss the feeling of properly sitting down and enjoying the food (if it was there to begin with).
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Foodways
My family does food in a very traditional Chinese way where: the female (my mother) prepares the food, everyone uses chopsticks, every meal involves either rice or noodles, and soy sauce or oyster sauce is present in every other dish. The stereotypical portrayal of Asian meal rituals is the portrayal of the rituals in my family as well (besides the dog part; that stuff is illegal). However, one thing that might differ between my families from of the other families is we exchange thoughts during dinner time. We have discussions as we are eating, that eventually turn into minor arguments due to the huge contrast in beliefs between me and my mother.
My perspective on food and my parent’s perspective of food are completely different. I see food as a source of rejuvenation, and maybe even as a requirement. Therefore I tend to eat relatively quick, compared to my parents. I eat to only satisfy that requirement, and see that if I spend too much time on eating, I’ll be wasting the time I can be using to do something else (by that, I mostly mean video games). My parents, on the contrary, value food and its taste. Therefore they take a little more time, sucking each bone dry, and chewing every piece of food until it’s a liquid. And while I feel like I could be doing something else with my time instead of slowly eating, their “something else” is eating.
In some ways, I can see that I have adopted the typical American food way, which seems to be very involved with haste and convenience. I, along with many other Americans, like to incorporate eating with another action, such as heading to work/school, doing homework, listening to the background sound of the television, or playing video games. Food can be described as “just there,” based on my approach to food and the approaches I’ve observed from the busy New Yorkers and their bagels on-to-go. Food never seems to be the focus of a typical American, from what I have seen in my experiences. People (including myself) are always just eating because it’s a basic survival need, and never really taken the time to fully focus on food. Even when people go out to a restaurant for dinner, their focus is still not on the food; rather it is on his/her date, the occasion or the convenience.
My perspective on food and my parent’s perspective of food are completely different. I see food as a source of rejuvenation, and maybe even as a requirement. Therefore I tend to eat relatively quick, compared to my parents. I eat to only satisfy that requirement, and see that if I spend too much time on eating, I’ll be wasting the time I can be using to do something else (by that, I mostly mean video games). My parents, on the contrary, value food and its taste. Therefore they take a little more time, sucking each bone dry, and chewing every piece of food until it’s a liquid. And while I feel like I could be doing something else with my time instead of slowly eating, their “something else” is eating.
In some ways, I can see that I have adopted the typical American food way, which seems to be very involved with haste and convenience. I, along with many other Americans, like to incorporate eating with another action, such as heading to work/school, doing homework, listening to the background sound of the television, or playing video games. Food can be described as “just there,” based on my approach to food and the approaches I’ve observed from the busy New Yorkers and their bagels on-to-go. Food never seems to be the focus of a typical American, from what I have seen in my experiences. People (including myself) are always just eating because it’s a basic survival need, and never really taken the time to fully focus on food. Even when people go out to a restaurant for dinner, their focus is still not on the food; rather it is on his/her date, the occasion or the convenience.
What is the Typical Diet of an American? How Much of Each is Consumed?
The following numbers are in terms of how much each person consume annually:
Meat, Poultry and Fish: 195 pounds
Soft Drinks (carbonated, "fruit drinks," juice, bottled water, etc.): 53 gallons
Eggs: 243 egg (yolks)
Flour, Grains, Beans: 200 pounds
Added Fats and Oil: 66 pounds
Dairy Products: 28 pounds
Ice Cream: 16 pounds
As we're eating, we do not consider that we eat a lot if we do not feel extremely full. But looking at it from a larger view, it's very shocking that this is how much consume. And a lot of this stuff is not exactly healthy. 53 gallons of soft drinks, 66 pounds of oil and 16 pounds of ice cream can be very fattening. But I guess it fits the American way of life: Do it now (eat), worry about it later.
Meat, Poultry and Fish: 195 pounds
Soft Drinks (carbonated, "fruit drinks," juice, bottled water, etc.): 53 gallons
Eggs: 243 egg (yolks)
Flour, Grains, Beans: 200 pounds
Added Fats and Oil: 66 pounds
Dairy Products: 28 pounds
Ice Cream: 16 pounds
As we're eating, we do not consider that we eat a lot if we do not feel extremely full. But looking at it from a larger view, it's very shocking that this is how much consume. And a lot of this stuff is not exactly healthy. 53 gallons of soft drinks, 66 pounds of oil and 16 pounds of ice cream can be very fattening. But I guess it fits the American way of life: Do it now (eat), worry about it later.
Inside of My...Refrigerator [Edit: with paragraph]
- Dried Mushrooms
- Jar of Salted Tangerines
- Lettuce
- Bread
- Leftover fish
- Jar of Sushi Ginger
- Cat food
- Dried Scallops
- Dried Beans
- Box of Salted Fish
- Pepper
- Scallions
- Ginger
- Fo-ti extract
- Eggs
- Dried Shrimp
- Lemon
- Bok Choy
- Dry Tea Leaves
- Spam
- Sweet Tea
- Celery
- Peas
- Marinated Fish
- Marinated Pork
- Lots of unknown Chinese Medicine (Dried and Liquids)
Judging from what I have in my refrigerator, it would seem that we use food as a source of enhancer for other food. For example, scallions and ginger: when I see these two things, I do not think that it's something we eat, rather this is something that we put in a dish, and then toss out. And I don't think that this only applies to my family because I've seen many chefs on the Food Network, talking about using certain types of food to add "texture" or "heat." A lot of the food that we use are not the food we consume. It just feels like America and the way that its people live their lives, are drifting further away from life. We have moved so far away from the basic needs and from what is essential, that we treasure things that are not necessarily significant to our survival. We long value food that helps us survive, but we value flavor that makes us taste something pleasurable for a brief moment.
- Jar of Salted Tangerines
- Lettuce
- Bread
- Leftover fish
- Jar of Sushi Ginger
- Cat food
- Dried Scallops
- Dried Beans
- Box of Salted Fish
- Pepper
- Scallions
- Ginger
- Fo-ti extract
- Eggs
- Dried Shrimp
- Lemon
- Bok Choy
- Dry Tea Leaves
- Spam
- Sweet Tea
- Celery
- Peas
- Marinated Fish
- Marinated Pork
- Lots of unknown Chinese Medicine (Dried and Liquids)
Judging from what I have in my refrigerator, it would seem that we use food as a source of enhancer for other food. For example, scallions and ginger: when I see these two things, I do not think that it's something we eat, rather this is something that we put in a dish, and then toss out. And I don't think that this only applies to my family because I've seen many chefs on the Food Network, talking about using certain types of food to add "texture" or "heat." A lot of the food that we use are not the food we consume. It just feels like America and the way that its people live their lives, are drifting further away from life. We have moved so far away from the basic needs and from what is essential, that we treasure things that are not necessarily significant to our survival. We long value food that helps us survive, but we value flavor that makes us taste something pleasurable for a brief moment.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Contrary to Michael Moore and Sandy
Canada is actually not doing as well as Michael Moore make it seem. In August 2007, it was reported that Canadians are becoming less satisfied with their health care. And even before the decrease, only 67% of the people were satisfied. However, it may be that Canadians are raising the bar and having higher standards. And even though less people are becoming satisfied with their health care, their system may still be better than the one in America.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The Reason Why [Big Paper]
From what is presented on the movie SiCKO, it seems that having universal health care in the U.S. would only be an improvement to the country. So why have we not made that transition from HMOs to single payer or socialized health care, even when many of the other Western countries, such as Canada, Great Britain, France and Cuba, are already following this system? The reason why to anything is never clear, nor definitive, however I believe the prevention of this change lies amongst the people of the U.S. It is not because universal health care is a bad system and will lead to the deaths of many people; it is because the people in the U.S. are unwilling to amend to a different system and admit that their own system is not the best one out there, partially because they want to remain “superior” and partially because they do not know that. Regardless, the health care system is still corrupt and the reason why that is remains unclear, but here is an attempt in explaining why we are still following this same system that is leaving many people untreated and dead. And maybe then, we’ll begin to make the attempt to see our problems and move towards a better system, something many of the other Western countries have already done.
Americans are often described as “stupid” and “ignorant,” which is not that far from the truth, judging from what I have seen from others and myself. Many of the people that I met in the past appear to know very little about the things that occur around them, even when they directly affect their own lives. In my most recent interviews about America’s health care system, most of the responses reflect on this ignorance. The common responses to the questions, “Do you think we should use the France or Britain or Canada’s health care systems as a model for the system in America” or “Do you agree or disagree with Obama’s health care plan?”Were, if not pertained to, the phrases such as “which is...,” “I guess…” or “what exactly is Obama planning to do?” People in America are not informed about the current situations with their own country or any other country. This ignorance is partially why we cannot have a revolution in America leading towards universal health care. Without this knowledge, the people cannot differentiate bad systems and better systems. The people do not know enough to see the flaws and the better alternatives, even when it is presented right in front of them.
Our lack of universal health, however, is not solely resulted from our lack of knowledge. Rather, it is also the outcome of our low standards and satisfaction from minor benefits. As long as there’s limited health coverage from some people, those people will be satisfied and follow the current system. When my mother was asked about our current health care situation, she responded by saying that she was happy that the government is willing to pay for her expenses. She added that our government is better than most other countries. It was shocking to hear this from my mother, being that I can recall many times where she was denied of certain doctors because they were not within her network. There were also many times where I have heard her complain about having to pay for some of her expenses. But despite all this, she still support the current health care system in America, which shows us that, in America, if the government provides some aid the people will accept it and ask nothing more of it. Just as it was said in SiCKO, the American people fear the government, and they fear that if they intervene with the government’s plans, then they will lose the aid that they already have. Therefore America would never be able to progress until the people lose this fear and adjust their standards.
Americans are not only controlled by the fear for their government, but also by the fear of transforming into their greatest enemies, communists. In SiCKO, it was referred to as “The Red Nightmare.” Throughout history, the American people have viewed people such as Mao Zhedong, Che Guevera, and Joseph Stalin; people with socialist and communist views, as the villains. And to have socialized healthcare, it would be seem like the country is taking one step towards communism, eliminating everyone’s chance of rising to the top. However this view is created by our values that have been heavily influenced by the government and what they portray in the media. If America were to learn to not intake everything that is given to them, then maybe they will begin to accept the alternative views and consider it.
These characteristics of the American people are not the only reason, but are definitely factors to why America still does not have universal health care. But if we were to begin inform ourselves about our health care situation, and listen to people (from Denmark) rather than making comments such as “the one in the pink looked hot,” begin to have higher demands, such as the people in France and make the government fear people rather than the other way around, and begin to open up our minds to other systems rather than making websites such as this one, then maybe we can move on towards a better way of living. Even then, there are more unknown variables that need to be changed about the American way of life, because 60% of Americans believe that the country needs to follow a different health care system, and yet remain as a country that predominantly follows HMOs. As we continue on, using this health care system, we remain as the country with the highest death rates and one of the countries with lower life expectancy. The people in America obviously needs to begin evaluating their own systems and seeking for better ones, but for now we can only continue to be a nation where 40% of our people are covered by health care, looking up to countries such as France where 99% of the people of covered (assuming that they know that fact). [Link]
Americans are often described as “stupid” and “ignorant,” which is not that far from the truth, judging from what I have seen from others and myself. Many of the people that I met in the past appear to know very little about the things that occur around them, even when they directly affect their own lives. In my most recent interviews about America’s health care system, most of the responses reflect on this ignorance. The common responses to the questions, “Do you think we should use the France or Britain or Canada’s health care systems as a model for the system in America” or “Do you agree or disagree with Obama’s health care plan?”Were, if not pertained to, the phrases such as “which is...,” “I guess…” or “what exactly is Obama planning to do?” People in America are not informed about the current situations with their own country or any other country. This ignorance is partially why we cannot have a revolution in America leading towards universal health care. Without this knowledge, the people cannot differentiate bad systems and better systems. The people do not know enough to see the flaws and the better alternatives, even when it is presented right in front of them.
Our lack of universal health, however, is not solely resulted from our lack of knowledge. Rather, it is also the outcome of our low standards and satisfaction from minor benefits. As long as there’s limited health coverage from some people, those people will be satisfied and follow the current system. When my mother was asked about our current health care situation, she responded by saying that she was happy that the government is willing to pay for her expenses. She added that our government is better than most other countries. It was shocking to hear this from my mother, being that I can recall many times where she was denied of certain doctors because they were not within her network. There were also many times where I have heard her complain about having to pay for some of her expenses. But despite all this, she still support the current health care system in America, which shows us that, in America, if the government provides some aid the people will accept it and ask nothing more of it. Just as it was said in SiCKO, the American people fear the government, and they fear that if they intervene with the government’s plans, then they will lose the aid that they already have. Therefore America would never be able to progress until the people lose this fear and adjust their standards.
Americans are not only controlled by the fear for their government, but also by the fear of transforming into their greatest enemies, communists. In SiCKO, it was referred to as “The Red Nightmare.” Throughout history, the American people have viewed people such as Mao Zhedong, Che Guevera, and Joseph Stalin; people with socialist and communist views, as the villains. And to have socialized healthcare, it would be seem like the country is taking one step towards communism, eliminating everyone’s chance of rising to the top. However this view is created by our values that have been heavily influenced by the government and what they portray in the media. If America were to learn to not intake everything that is given to them, then maybe they will begin to accept the alternative views and consider it.
These characteristics of the American people are not the only reason, but are definitely factors to why America still does not have universal health care. But if we were to begin inform ourselves about our health care situation, and listen to people (from Denmark) rather than making comments such as “the one in the pink looked hot,” begin to have higher demands, such as the people in France and make the government fear people rather than the other way around, and begin to open up our minds to other systems rather than making websites such as this one, then maybe we can move on towards a better way of living. Even then, there are more unknown variables that need to be changed about the American way of life, because 60% of Americans believe that the country needs to follow a different health care system, and yet remain as a country that predominantly follows HMOs. As we continue on, using this health care system, we remain as the country with the highest death rates and one of the countries with lower life expectancy. The people in America obviously needs to begin evaluating their own systems and seeking for better ones, but for now we can only continue to be a nation where 40% of our people are covered by health care, looking up to countries such as France where 99% of the people of covered (assuming that they know that fact). [Link]
Friday, April 24, 2009
Inside of My...Refrigerator
- Dried Mushrooms
- Jar of Salted Tangerines
- Lettuce
- Bread
- Leftover fish
- Jar of Sushi Ginger
- Cat food
- Dried Scallops
- Dried Beans
- Box of Salted Fish
- Pepper
- Scallions
- Ginger
- Fo-ti extract
- Eggs
- Dried Shrimp
- Lemon
- Bok Choy
- Dry Tea Leaves
- Spam
- Sweet Tea
- Celery
- Peas
- Marinated Fish
- Marinated Pork
- Lots of unknown Chinese Medicine (Dried and Liquids)
- Jar of Salted Tangerines
- Lettuce
- Bread
- Leftover fish
- Jar of Sushi Ginger
- Cat food
- Dried Scallops
- Dried Beans
- Box of Salted Fish
- Pepper
- Scallions
- Ginger
- Fo-ti extract
- Eggs
- Dried Shrimp
- Lemon
- Bok Choy
- Dry Tea Leaves
- Spam
- Sweet Tea
- Celery
- Peas
- Marinated Fish
- Marinated Pork
- Lots of unknown Chinese Medicine (Dried and Liquids)
Thursday, April 16, 2009
My Family's Health Coverage
For my family, it seems that we're more fortunate in health care, due to our economic misfortune. We are currently covered by two different HMO's: HIP and United Choice, as well as Medicare. We do not have to pay for either on, and for the most part our medical needs are covered. However, there are some restrictions, being that each company has their own network and does not cover every single prescribed medicine. When my family meets that restriction, we just cope with it by choosing the alternative, whether it be going to another doctor or having the doctor prescribe a similar medicine, that is covered by our insurance. Going to the doctor has never been much of an issue, and neither has receiving medical help in the emergency room, for me at least. A few years ago, I had an allergic reaction and went to the Downtown hospital. I did not have to wait that long to receive medical attention; they just took a glance at my card and saw that it was something they accepted and got straight to the treatment (but then again, this was 3 o'clock in the morning and no one else was there waiting). Needless to say, our family has never been reluctant to go to the doctor or hospital because of an economical issue, which would make my family the counterexample of Michael Moore's idea of health care in America, in that perspective. But my family has been victims of its denial. My mom once had two surgeries within a week, and her insurance agreed to cover it. But they thought it was a mistake that there were two surgeries within a week, and decided to only pay for one of them, leaving the second one unpaid. They would not pay for the other surgery, and so the hospital kept sending us the bill, but eventually we straightened it out and we ended up paying nothing. After watching a portion of SiCKO and looking back at this scenario, I can definitely see how the insurance company are trying to find cracks to slip through, and trying to avoid every possible payment.
Over break, I was talking to my friends the things that I learned from SiCKO, about the health care system in Great Britain and France, and how the people not only do not have to pay for going to the doctor, but they get paid for their transportation. And one of my friends said that his doctor, Charles B. Wang does that as well. He told me that every time he goes to the doctor, they would give both him and his mom a $4 dollar Metrocard each. Hearing this and thinking back to some of the other aspects of America, it made me realize that America is not a completely corrupt country. There are definitely systems in it that are not practiced enough, but need to be focused and expanded on to allow for the country to improve.
Over break, I was talking to my friends the things that I learned from SiCKO, about the health care system in Great Britain and France, and how the people not only do not have to pay for going to the doctor, but they get paid for their transportation. And one of my friends said that his doctor, Charles B. Wang does that as well. He told me that every time he goes to the doctor, they would give both him and his mom a $4 dollar Metrocard each. Hearing this and thinking back to some of the other aspects of America, it made me realize that America is not a completely corrupt country. There are definitely systems in it that are not practiced enough, but need to be focused and expanded on to allow for the country to improve.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Chair Activities Analysis
One of the activities that we simulated in class was musical chairs. Being that we are studying about a capitalist country, named America, and playing a game that includes the victory of an individual, I suspected that this activity pertained to the competition that we face everyday to survive in our society. In both the game and in any capitalist country, an individual's success is germane to how competitive they are. If a person has a strong enough ambition to win, then they will have a greater chance to succeed, compared to if they didn't. However, as shown in musical chairs, the victory of an individual leads to the failure of many others. In the end, only a few can win and many will lose.
Through musical chairs, we also took notice on the fact that many people did not have a chair/job, because there weren't enough. People could not sit not because they "lost," but for the simple fact that this game is set up so that there wouldn't be enough chairs for everyone to sit in, similar to how # of seats of employment is less than the # of people. And to make it worse, the second time that we followed this activity, there were reserved chairs for certain people that were never removed. And similarly, in our society, those who are already wealthy will remain rich, if not richer. Their wealth will generate more wealth, while the poor will continue to struggle through life, due to their inability to follow the rules of society. (In the musical chair example, Maggie, Jia Min and Dylan will continue have a place to sit, while the competition becomes more intense for those who do not have a reserved seat).
The other activity that we did was the visual representation of the share of national wealth in America through chairs. All the chairs represented all of America's wealth. During this activity, we saw that a great amount of people had to share half a chair, while a few individuals had 3 chairs to themselves. This portrayal of share of national wealth shows that while the bottom (in terms of wealth) 60% have to share less than 20% of the national wealth, the top 1% has approximately the same amount to themselves. A vast majority of the people have to live an uncomfortable life style, just so that those few people can have more than they should (in some cases, can) use. However in America, we view that 1% as an example and the driving force for "working hard." Everyone wants to be that top percentile. Even throughout the activity, I was hoping to be one of the top 20%, so that I wouldn't have to be cramped into half a chair with two other people. But wIthout that 1% of successful people, everyone would lose all hope, which is why we see them as a goal, rather than a person that is taking our wealth that can possibly provide a better life style for us.
-Another thought-
While doing the analysis about the chair representation of the share of national wealth, I was thinking about how people on the subways, sometimes take up two seats even when there are people standing up. And most people see that as rude and selfish. However, on the bigger scale into the measures of wealth, we see those people who "take up two seats" as superior and hard working. I just thought it was interesting how America has two completely different views on people who are essentially doing the same.
Through musical chairs, we also took notice on the fact that many people did not have a chair/job, because there weren't enough. People could not sit not because they "lost," but for the simple fact that this game is set up so that there wouldn't be enough chairs for everyone to sit in, similar to how # of seats of employment is less than the # of people. And to make it worse, the second time that we followed this activity, there were reserved chairs for certain people that were never removed. And similarly, in our society, those who are already wealthy will remain rich, if not richer. Their wealth will generate more wealth, while the poor will continue to struggle through life, due to their inability to follow the rules of society. (In the musical chair example, Maggie, Jia Min and Dylan will continue have a place to sit, while the competition becomes more intense for those who do not have a reserved seat).
The other activity that we did was the visual representation of the share of national wealth in America through chairs. All the chairs represented all of America's wealth. During this activity, we saw that a great amount of people had to share half a chair, while a few individuals had 3 chairs to themselves. This portrayal of share of national wealth shows that while the bottom (in terms of wealth) 60% have to share less than 20% of the national wealth, the top 1% has approximately the same amount to themselves. A vast majority of the people have to live an uncomfortable life style, just so that those few people can have more than they should (in some cases, can) use. However in America, we view that 1% as an example and the driving force for "working hard." Everyone wants to be that top percentile. Even throughout the activity, I was hoping to be one of the top 20%, so that I wouldn't have to be cramped into half a chair with two other people. But wIthout that 1% of successful people, everyone would lose all hope, which is why we see them as a goal, rather than a person that is taking our wealth that can possibly provide a better life style for us.
-Another thought-
While doing the analysis about the chair representation of the share of national wealth, I was thinking about how people on the subways, sometimes take up two seats even when there are people standing up. And most people see that as rude and selfish. However, on the bigger scale into the measures of wealth, we see those people who "take up two seats" as superior and hard working. I just thought it was interesting how America has two completely different views on people who are essentially doing the same.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Q&A about Poverty and Wealth in America
How has the share of wealth change throughout time in America
"In 1865, at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, African Americans owned 0.5% of the total worth of the United States…by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans owned only a meager 1% of total wealth” (Conley, Being Black, Living Red). And now by 2001, African Americans own 3%.
How is age factored into the povety rate?
Age 18>: 18%
Ages 19-64: 10.9%
> Age 65: 9.7%
These percentages are how much of that age group lives in poverty. (e.g. 18% of people younger than 18 years old lives in poverty)
How is the national wealth measured in America?
According to Paul Cole, there is no exact way of measuring wealth because "wealth is in the eye of the collective beholders."
What is the currect % and number of people living in poverty?
As of 2005, the % of people living in poverty is 12.5%, making the # of people living in poverty 37 million.
How does the national poverty rate compare to the minor poverty rate?
The poverty rate for minors is 21.9%, as opposed to the previously stated, 12.5% in America.
Is the poverty rate increasing or decreasing? And by how much each year?
Compared to 1959, where the poverty rate was around 23%, the poverty rate now is significantly lower. However, since the year 2000, it has slightly increased by 1-2%.
Questions left to be answered, and yet to be found on the internet:
- If the national wealth was divided equally amongst everyone in America, would anyone be below the poverty line?
- Which race is in the greatest danger of entering poverty at a greater rate?
"In 1865, at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, African Americans owned 0.5% of the total worth of the United States…by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans owned only a meager 1% of total wealth” (Conley, Being Black, Living Red). And now by 2001, African Americans own 3%.
How is age factored into the povety rate?
Age 18>: 18%
Ages 19-64: 10.9%
> Age 65: 9.7%
These percentages are how much of that age group lives in poverty. (e.g. 18% of people younger than 18 years old lives in poverty)
How is the national wealth measured in America?
According to Paul Cole, there is no exact way of measuring wealth because "wealth is in the eye of the collective beholders."
What is the currect % and number of people living in poverty?
As of 2005, the % of people living in poverty is 12.5%, making the # of people living in poverty 37 million.
How does the national poverty rate compare to the minor poverty rate?
The poverty rate for minors is 21.9%, as opposed to the previously stated, 12.5% in America.
Is the poverty rate increasing or decreasing? And by how much each year?
Compared to 1959, where the poverty rate was around 23%, the poverty rate now is significantly lower. However, since the year 2000, it has slightly increased by 1-2%.
Questions left to be answered, and yet to be found on the internet:
- If the national wealth was divided equally amongst everyone in America, would anyone be below the poverty line?
- Which race is in the greatest danger of entering poverty at a greater rate?
Friday, March 27, 2009
Taxation System in America and Denmark
In America, we do not follow strictly follow any one economic system. Instead, our system is a “mixed” economy”, where it contains aspects of socialism and capitalism. There are things in America that are publicly owned and privately owned. On the socialist perspective of America, there are things to be shared and organized by the government, such as: parks, libraries, schools, welfares, beaches, prison systems, etc. On the other hand the capitalist aspect involves things that are marketed, to be bought and sold, such as: homes, books, food, clothing, cars, etc. Having a system of “mixed economy” allows the people to have private economic freedom and still have centralized economy planning. In America, the “centralized economy planning,” involves taxes, money that is forced to be paid to the government in order for them to provide public services. Three major taxes in America are, income tax (% depends on an individual’s yearly income); social security tax (7.65%) and sales tax (8.25%). Amongst the types of taxes, there are: “flat tax” where everyone pays the same tax percentage, “regressive tax” where the poor people pay a higher tax, and “progressive tax” where the rich people pay more tax. Two major examples of progressive tax in America, would be the “marginal taxation system” where the amount of tax you pay depends on your income and the “bracket” that you passed (e.g. Income = $50000, Tax = 25% of 50000=$12,500) and the “effective taxation system,” which also depends on your income. However the effective taxation system is different in the sense that each bracket only applies to a portion of your money.
(e.g. Income = $50000
- $0-$10,000 = 0% | From $0 to $10,000, there is $10,000. So 0% of the $10,000 = $0 is the first tax bracket
- $10,000-$25,0000 = 20% | $10,000 to $25,000 = $15,000---20% of $15,000 = $3,000 [2nd tax bracket]
- $25,000-40,000 = 30% | 30% of $15,000 = $4,500 [3rd tax bracket]
- $40,000- $60,000 = 40% | Since, the income does not reach to $60,000, this bracket applies for the $10,000 between $40,000 to the income, $50,000--- 40% of $10,000 = $4,000 [4th tax bracket]
- $60,000+ = 50% | [Does not apply because the income does not reach this bracket]
Total tax = $0 (1st bracket) + $3000 (2nd) + $4,500 (3rd) + $4,000 (4th) = $11,500
Effective Tax Rate = 11,500/50,000 = 23%)
A portion of all these taxes goes towards public services and the socialist aspect of America. Meanwhile, everything else is capitalist and is owned privately by individuals.
Unlike America, Denmark runs with a “social democracy.” Having a social democracy guarantees everything required for a decent life. Most of everything that is needed for survival is organized by the government at a cost of a higher tax rate (in Denmark, it would be 60-65% if you exceed $60000). For example, rather than having an individual pay for insurance, a social democracy would provide free insurance that has been paid for by the taxes. The higher tax rate allows for more publicly shared schools, libraries, parks, etc. and provides various benefits for the people, such as: unemployment benefits, healthcare, insurance, higher education, etc. In Denmark, not only are most of the costs covered, but people are actually paid to do certain things, such as going to school. However, even with a social democracy, Denmark is still a mixed economy because there are still private ownership and businesses. Those people, who do own their own businesses often make more money, but receive fewer benefits. Either way, most necessities are provided by your greater income or by the government, and would be very difficult (but not impossible) to be poor.
I believe that moving towards a social democracy would be very beneficial. I think that it is better to pay higher taxes and receive more benefits, than to just pay directly with our income. Not only would that be cheaper (due to the additional money coming from the upper class), but it would also guarantee it. Most people argue that you do not know where your money goes when you pay taxes. However, if we kept that money in our pockets, we still would not know where it goes. Most people in America, or at least the people I’ve seen in my experience, cannot manage their money. The way that I see it is that by paying a higher tax, we are giving it to an accountant or an expert, and paying off what is required for survival in society first, then spending the excess money on your own desires. However, I do not think that this plan would be possible any time soon in America. Many people are already pissed off by the war and the fact that our money is going towards massacring people in another country. The people in America have already lost trust in the government, and do not want to contribute more to the evil deeds that are done with our taxes.
(e.g. Income = $50000
- $0-$10,000 = 0% | From $0 to $10,000, there is $10,000. So 0% of the $10,000 = $0 is the first tax bracket
- $10,000-$25,0000 = 20% | $10,000 to $25,000 = $15,000---20% of $15,000 = $3,000 [2nd tax bracket]
- $25,000-40,000 = 30% | 30% of $15,000 = $4,500 [3rd tax bracket]
- $40,000- $60,000 = 40% | Since, the income does not reach to $60,000, this bracket applies for the $10,000 between $40,000 to the income, $50,000--- 40% of $10,000 = $4,000 [4th tax bracket]
- $60,000+ = 50% | [Does not apply because the income does not reach this bracket]
Total tax = $0 (1st bracket) + $3000 (2nd) + $4,500 (3rd) + $4,000 (4th) = $11,500
Effective Tax Rate = 11,500/50,000 = 23%)
A portion of all these taxes goes towards public services and the socialist aspect of America. Meanwhile, everything else is capitalist and is owned privately by individuals.
Unlike America, Denmark runs with a “social democracy.” Having a social democracy guarantees everything required for a decent life. Most of everything that is needed for survival is organized by the government at a cost of a higher tax rate (in Denmark, it would be 60-65% if you exceed $60000). For example, rather than having an individual pay for insurance, a social democracy would provide free insurance that has been paid for by the taxes. The higher tax rate allows for more publicly shared schools, libraries, parks, etc. and provides various benefits for the people, such as: unemployment benefits, healthcare, insurance, higher education, etc. In Denmark, not only are most of the costs covered, but people are actually paid to do certain things, such as going to school. However, even with a social democracy, Denmark is still a mixed economy because there are still private ownership and businesses. Those people, who do own their own businesses often make more money, but receive fewer benefits. Either way, most necessities are provided by your greater income or by the government, and would be very difficult (but not impossible) to be poor.
I believe that moving towards a social democracy would be very beneficial. I think that it is better to pay higher taxes and receive more benefits, than to just pay directly with our income. Not only would that be cheaper (due to the additional money coming from the upper class), but it would also guarantee it. Most people argue that you do not know where your money goes when you pay taxes. However, if we kept that money in our pockets, we still would not know where it goes. Most people in America, or at least the people I’ve seen in my experience, cannot manage their money. The way that I see it is that by paying a higher tax, we are giving it to an accountant or an expert, and paying off what is required for survival in society first, then spending the excess money on your own desires. However, I do not think that this plan would be possible any time soon in America. Many people are already pissed off by the war and the fact that our money is going towards massacring people in another country. The people in America have already lost trust in the government, and do not want to contribute more to the evil deeds that are done with our taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)