Graham Hill: Why I'm a Weekday Vegetarian

     Graham Hill is a weekday vegetarian. For many reasons, he's decided to reserve meat to just two days a week. Why don't more people follow his lead?
     Mass consumption of meat has incredibly detrimental effects to the environment, the consumers' own health, and the treatment of livestock. Eating meat, particularly red meat, increases people's risk for heart disease, making meat produces more emissions than all of transportation combined, and animals are subjected to unbelievably inhumane conditions in factory farms. But this shouldn't be news to anyone. We've all heard facts like this. So why does everyone still eat so much meat? Meat consumption in the United States has actually doubled since the 50's making it even harder for cleaner, more humane, family-owned farms to survive as the number of factory farms increases. Do we just turn a blind eye to it and ignore the reality of where our own food comes from so we don't feel guilty every time we eat? Or it is like Hill suggests; people only see a binary solution, either meat or no meat at all, and are unwilling to sacrifice meat completely? Why don't more people take advantage of this middle ground? 
     Speaking as someone who has been raised as a vegetarian and never eaten red meat, my perspective is that it's not at all difficult to find non-meat options. In fact it's become much easier in just the past several years. When my mom was following a vegetarian diet in college, her options were bread, pizza, potatoes, and pasta. Now, entire sections of college dining halls and restaurant menus are dedicated to vegan and vegetarian options. Cutting down on how much meat you eat is not a difficult thing to do, yet if we all ate even just half as much meat as we do now, the benefits to the environment and our health alone would be tremendous.


This blog is based on a TED Talk by Graham Hill: http://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_weekday_vegetarian.html

Bart Knols: Cheese, Dogs, and a Pill to Kill Mosquitoes and End Malaria

     Bart Knols has done quite a bit of research to discover and create a few new methods that could potentially eliminate malaria.
     One thing Bart does during this presentation is try to put the deadliness of malaria in perspective. Every 30 seconds, a child somewhere in the world dies because of malaria. In Africa alone, malaria is daily responsible for the same number of deaths as 7 jumbo 747 jets crashing into the ground. This is an incredible amount of death from one little parasite. 
     It's also interesting how different people smell more appealing to mosquitoes. When my family is sitting around a campfire, my mom and I are always attacked by mosquitoes while my dad and brother are left almost untouched. My mom always jokes about us smelling sweeter to mosquitoes, and it turns out there's some truth in it. What makes some people produce more of these "attractive" chemicals than others? Since people don't have a sensitive enough sense of smell to detect the differences, what are the evolutionary reasons for people secreting different chemicals? Wouldn't nature select for people who didn't attract deadly mosquitoes? So why does such a large population still produce these particular chemicals? As far as Knols being able to produce a synthetic chemical that attracts mosquitoes, how does he use this to people's advantage? Does he lace a trap with this chemical to draw the mosquitoes away from the people? But would having this ultra-attractive chemical in someone's bedroom end up pulling in more mosquitoes than normal, resulting in just as many human bites despite a greater number trapped? And considering it's based on the scent of strong cheese, would it be unpleasant for people to have it in their living spaces? Or are the people that this product apply to not overly concerned with a little Linberger aroma?
     Other than scent attracting mosquitoes, mosquito larvae and people with the malarial parasite both have a distinct smell which dogs can be trained to detect. Between these sniffing dogs finding the larvae-infested pools to be doused with insecticide and finding the infected people early enough to be treated, the entire population of mosquitoes in an area and therefore malaria could eventually be eliminated. 
     The last method of mosquito-killing that Knols talks about is a pill that people ingest which causes mosquitoes to die after biting them. But what sort of long-term side effects could this pill cause? I can't help but think that taking a pill that causes your blood to become poison for another species might not be the best for us either. However, this is an interesting solution: let as many mosquitoes as possible bite you to save others from being bitten by the same mosquitoes later. It sounds almost chivalrous. 
     Clearly malaria is a tremendous problem, but what sort of impact could the elimination of an entire species have on the environment? Mosquitoes, as an insect at the bottom of the food chain, are the main food source for other species like bats. Without mosquitoes as a food source, many bats would die, and the same effect would move up the food chain. In addition, with the elimination of a huge source of human fatality, would an eventual influx of population cause other problems for people in these developing countries, like even more competition for already scarce resources? Getting rid of all of the pesky little biting bugs sounds like a nice plan, but could it create even bigger problems than it solves?


This blog is based on a TED Talk by Bart Knols: http://www.ted.com/talks/bart_knols_cheese_dogs_and_pills_to_end_malaria.html

Rachel Armstrong: Architecture That Repairs Itself?

     Rachel Armstrong and her team are designing living architecture. They've developed protocells that have the properties of a living system and can become the framework of any building. She wants to step away from the ancient Victorian technology of inert structures based on blueprints and move towards architecture that can repair itself, building from the bottom up rather than from the top down.
     I simply can't get over the imagination of this woman. I don't think I could even imagine such a seemingly outlandish technology, nevermind actually develop DNA-less cells that can grow in accordance to their engineering. Depending on how they're engineered, they can grow towards light, away from light, grow different materials, etc. They metabolize carbon dioxide in order to grow, meaning these cells are both sustainable and help clean the atmosphere. This sounds like the things of dreams, not something we actually have microscopic pictures of.
     Armstrong and her team hope to implement their new technology to save the sinking city of Venice by building a limestone reef around the wooden piles that currently support it. It would take years to fully develop, but once implemented, the limestone-building protocells would both sink carbon dioxide in the water and create an underwater ecosystem.
     This talk is an eye-opener to what is achievable. It almost seems that whatever one can dream up is in some way possible. Architectural materials that can grow? It sounds like an almost laughable notion. But with the evidence of how much progress they've made, it becomes an incredible scientific feat. Isn't that the case with any great achievement? When someone thinks so far outside the box, they become a laughing stock until they do the "impossible" and shock the world.
     So let's try to stretch our minds beyond the norm and reclaim some of our childhood imagination. Let's start imagining that anything's possible because more and more it seems that it is.


This blog is based on a TED Talk by Rachel Armstrong: http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_armstrong_architecture_that_repairs_itself.html

Dan Ariely: Our Buggy Moral Code

     Dan Ariely points out the irrationality of the human mind and the flaws in our moral code. Through a large set of experiments, he discovered some interesting trends in cheating:
     1. There aren't a few people that cheat a lot; rather many people cheat just a little
     2. Even when the amount of money per question claimed answered increases, people cheat the same amount
     3. Reminding people of their morality makes them cheat less
     4. When people are offered tokens instead of money, they cheat more (when the distance from money increases, cheating increases)
     5. Obvious cheating by one person in a group increases cheating within that group 
     I found these trends to be interesting and surprising. Regarding Ariely's first discovery, there were no significant outliers of either extreme cheaters or particularly morally righteous people who affected the results. Pretty much everyone acted in the same way. Surely if people were aware of the experiment being conducted, they would act accordingly to how they wanted to be perceived. But without that influence, people acted without thought to how other people would react to their actions, and they all essentially responded the same way. No one wants to hear that they have the same morally flawed logic as everyone else, but it seems like the majority of us do. And why not? If we are all raised within the same or similar cultures and have the same basic chemical make-up, why wouldn't we act similarly? But no one likes to think of it this way; we would all rather prefer to believe we are tremendously unique. 
     I was most surprised by Ariely's second point: even when people were offered more money for each question they answered (on a range from $.05 to $10 each), the amount of cheating remained the same. I would have thought that people would cheat more when more money was at stake because I don't see the point in lying for the gain of $.10. The risk outweighs the potential benefit. On the other hand, $20 is a pretty significant amount of money. So why doesn't the amount of cheating change? Perhaps because as the amount of money increases, the fallout from getting caught increases, as do our feelings of guilt. Conversely, the less money there is at stake, the less of a fallout there is from getting caught, and the less guilt we feel for taking such a small amount (equally less risk and reward). So perhaps these factors even out to produce this result. Or perhaps humans are much more simple than we would like to think, and we just cheat the same amount regardless of how much money is offered because we don't actually care to weigh all of these factors. However, I believe it's a bit more complicated than that considering how much people over-think so many things and how much subconscious thought seems to go into all of our decisions. 
     I also thought it was rather heartening to learn that cheating was altogether nonexistent when people were reminded of their morality. Even when self-proclaimed atheists were asked to swear on a bible before taking their quiz, there were no instances of cheating. Just asking someone not to cheat most often results in them not cheating (at least according to Ariely's experiments). So then why is there so much cheating in school/college when we're constantly being told not to? Perhaps it's due to the fact that in Ariely's experiments, people were simply offered extra money for questions answered, while in school, it's often felt as a necessity to get a good grade. Since there is such a massive emphasis on the importance of a good grade, students feel that the moral violation of cheating and even feelings of guilt are well worth it. However, I believe this exposes a greater flaw in our education system than it does in the students. 
     The reaction to cheating within groups was also interesting. Within a group of Carnegie-Mellon students, if a paid actor was told to overtly cheat while wearing a Carnegie-Mellon sweatshirt, cheating increased, but if the actor wore a University of Pittsburgh sweatshirt, cheating among the CM students decreased. People have an innate sense of competition, and in this case they all felt the individual need to be on a morally higher ground than an individual outside of their group. But then when one of their own cheated, they viewed it as justification to cheat themselves. Even when thinking individually, this body of people acted in the same way.
     Finally, Ariely brought up the point that people would greatly benefit from testing their own intuitions. Generally, people take their intuitions to be true without thinking about it, but this can result in unproductive and even harmful practices. I believe humans are a generally vain species, and it would do well of us to question ourselves every once in a while. 


This blog is based on a TED Talk by Dan Ariely: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html

An Epidemic of Beauty Sickness: Renee Engeln at TEDxUConn 2013

     Renee Engeln sees the increasingly concerning epidemic of "beauty sickness" everywhere, particularly among the young women she teaches. These girls have been so indoctrinated by society that physical appearance is the most important asset they can have that their desire for beauty overshadows any of their other concerns. Engeln discusses this problem and offers solutions.
     When Renee Engeln approached her graduate advisor and voiced that she would like to do some research on how media images of the "ideal" female figure might be affecting women, her advisor's response was, "Don't bother; smart women know better than to listen to the media." I was shocked at this response. Smart women know better than to look at an unnaturally beautiful model and desire to look like that? I found that more than mildly insulting since I have a nearly palpable sense of shame and longing when I see pictures of gorgeous women. It doesn't matter that I know this appearance is incredibly rare. I still want to look like that. How does that make me unintelligent? Insecure perhaps, but not unintelligent. Society and social media have conditioned women to be concerned about their appearance. Unfortunately, the focus is less on how to be healthier and more beautiful (i.e. exercising) and more on the message that you are not; these other women are. Engeln notes that society sends three very clear messages to women:
     1. beautiful is the most important thing a woman can be
     2. this (these pictures of models) is what you should look like
     3. you do not look like this
These are such unhealthy messages to be sending to people. The only possible outcomes are defeat and depression. Society dangles an unattainable idea of "beautiful" far far over our heads. And it is not only the gullible women who feel a desire to look like these impossibly beautiful models.
     Where did this idea of beauty come from? Decades ago, the most beautiful women were curvaceous. Now, the most iconic pictures of a desirable figure are those of the borderline anorexic Victoria Secret Angels. Is this due to the significant increase in weight and obesity? The heavier the common person is, the more desirable it is to be thinner? And why are women sooo much more concerned with their appearances that men? Why don't men have this incredible social pressure to be perfect? Is it because women simply tend to be more insecure and are therefore easier victims for advertising? But what came first then, insecurity or this pressure to be impossibly beautiful?
     Engeln makes the point of just how much the idea of a woman's appearance consumes her thoughts. She performs an almost comical rendition of the constant string of thoughts passing through a woman's head (How does my hair look? Do I have skinny-arm? Is this shirt giving me a muffin top? etc.), but the funniest (or perhaps most disconcerting) thing about it is that it's completely accurate. Women, or at least the majority, particularly of young women, are hyper-sensitive about their appearance. And Engeln argues that if you are so busy concerning yourself with yourself, you aren't open to exploring the world around you. We should spend less time worrying about how we look and more time looking around us. After all, we absolutely care more about how we look than anyone else cares about how we look. We are the harshest critics of ourselves.
     So then Engeln offers a few solutions. I thought her most interesting one was to stop ourselves from telling little girls they are pretty and instead complimenting them on another asset, like intelligence or kindness. We teach girls the exaggerated importance of appearance at such a young age, and we should make an effort to reverse this trend. However, this strategy would only work if everyone adhered to it - because right now, the girls who aren't being told they're pretty and only hear other girls being called that can only assume that they are not. Before we can even think of employing this new strategy, we need to convince adult women that appearance is not everything. After all, they are among those conveying this message to their daughters.
     One final point of Engeln's I'd like to highlight is to view your body as the one whole, capable object that it is rather than picking it apart. Instead of saying your arms are too fat and your thighs are too wide, focus on the things this incredible vehicle is allowing you to do. Whenever I start getting down about myself, my mom reminds me to be thankful for the body I have rather than criticizing these insignificant details.
     Every woman could do with some body confidence.
    

This blog is based on a TEDx Talk by Renee Engeln: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63XsokRPV_Y

Sarah Kay: If I Should Have a Daughter...

     Sarah Kay is a spoken-word poet. She presents her poems by speaking them rather than just writing them on paper. In this talk, she performs two of her poems, "B" and "Hiroshima," and explains the beauty of spoken-word poetry. 
     Kay kicks off the talk with her first spoken-word poem, a motivational story about what kind of mother she will be to her daughter in this often difficult life. And that's what it was: a story. It was not a poem in the sense that it rhymed or followed some particular meter; it was a passionate story that inspired the listeners and allowed us to connect with the speaker at some emotional level. In fact it threw me off a bit at first. It was only after she finished her poem and started the meat of her talk that I even realized the introduction was a spoken-word poem. To me, she just sounded like a very good motivational/inspirational speaker. But this is one of her main points: spoken-word poetry doesn't have to be difficult. It's not about following some particular poetic structure; it's about conveying one's thoughts in order to connect with other people in the room. Kay mentions that oftentimes many people feel like they're alone, but hearing and sharing these emotion-filled and often personal poems creates an immediate connection between people. Spoken-word poetry is accessible to everyone.
     After Kay's introduction, she tells the audience to think of three things they each know to be true. And then she says that, if people were to share their lists, they would hear four things: one of their own same items, something completely opposite of one of their items, something they had never even heard of before, and a new angle on something they thought they already knew everything about. This stresses both the importance of sharing ideas as well as the disturbing notion that nothing is concrete; almost everything is a matter of perspective. Things we consider to be the most basic truths, completely irrefutable in our own minds, can be viewed very differently by other people. Even something as concrete as math isn't actually as objective as perhaps many of us believe it to be or would like it to be. In the one week of Advanced Calculus that I took at the beginning of this semester, my professor told me that in the field of (1, 0), 1 + 1 = 0, but of course it would make no sense to say 1 + 1 = 1 because that would imply that 1 = 0. That's when I decided I wasn't in the right class. My point is that arguably nothing is set in stone to the point that every person on this planet could agree that it's true. And that's a disturbing notion. But it also makes it important to share your ideas with other people in order to expose yourself to other perspectives. Can you think of one fact that has no counterexamples, one thing everyone can agree on?
     Kay also talks about the three steps that were most crucial to her in becoming a successful spoken-word poet:
     1. the moment she said "I can"
     2. when she said "I will" continue to do this
     3. realizing that she needed to grow and explore and take risks and challenge herself and incorporate herself into these poems while she was simultaneously changing and growing. This step never ends.
But these steps to success could be applied to any situation. In order to do the "impossible," you have to believe in yourself and have confidence that you can do it in the first place. Then comes perseverance and finally the beginnings of success with the recognition that one must challenge his/herself in order to grow. Kay uses poetry to work through things she doesn't understand, but there are many different avenues one could take in order to further discover oneself. It seems like someone certainly has to bare their soul in order to be as successful of a spoken-word poet as Kay.


This blog is based on a TED Talk by Sarah Kay: http://www.ted.com/talks/sarah_kay_if_i_should_have_a_daughter.html

Ken Robinson: How Schools Kill Creativity

     In this humorous yet highly convincing talk, Ken Robinson emphasizes the fact that current education systems squelch creativity rather than foster it, hindering original ideas and potentially revolutionary solutions to problems of the future.
     The first bit of irony is that the purpose of school, of public education, is to prepare people for a future which not a single person can possibly know anything about. This was Robinson's point at least. And while it's perfectly true, it also does well to mention that as school-aged children are the future, the way we educate them directly influences the future. The future is not independent from human's influence since we intentionally shape the world around us to suit our needs. But I suppose what he is saying is that we need to change the way we teach children so that they have the appropriate tools to solve the global problems which we are currently creating for ourselves.
     Robinson also points out that school kills creativity by making incorrectness the worst possible thing. Young children are not afraid to be wrong; public school teaches them out of this. And one can't possibly think of original ideas if they are afraid of being wrong. Beyond that, from personal experience, I can say that a fear of being wrong prevents me from even admitting that I don't understand something because I'm afraid of judgment form the other students: is anyone else not understanding this? Will I sound stupid if I ask and it turns out I'm the only one who doesn't know the answer? Then what will my teacher think of me? This is the attitude public school has imbibed in us. Red is even viewed as a negative color because of the fact that many teachers correct (and therefor mark incorrect answers) in red.
     I thought it was a very interesting point that education started during industrialization, when people needed to learn maths and sciences in order to get a job. This dictated the subject hierarchy which is still the foundation of public education today: first math and language, then the social sciences, and then only art at the bottom. There is a definite stigma against the arts. Anyone will tell you not to major in art because there're no jobs in the field, and art majors are stereotyped quite heavily by other college majors. However, although Robinson argues against it, I tend to agree that there is not much future in art as a profession. One can only be a very successful artist if they are one of the best and become quite famous. The sciences and technology-related fields are still in the highest demand as we continue this technological revolution. But maybe Robinson is saying that there would be a future in art as a profession if only it wasn't so stigmatized and was actually encouraged in school. However I still feel that, when it comes down to it, jobs in technology are still going to be in greater demand than those in entertainment. Although there is an ungodly amount of money generated by entertainment, it's controlled by comparatively few.
     That being said, I make no qualms with Robinson's argument that public schools suppress and eventually destroy creativity. But what sort of incredible revolution of education would be required to accomplish such a feat as inspiring creativity? Grading systems can't completely go out the window. And objective subjects are still a necessary part of one's education. Perhaps this is a pessimistic view, but I find it highly unlikely that the education system will change any time soon. It's been embedded too deeply into our culture. As Robinson said, education goes deep with people, as deeply as religion or money.


This blog is based on a TED Talk by Ken Robinson: http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

This American Life: Switched at Birth

     In short, this episode of This American Life tells the story of two girls who were unknowingly switched at birth and the implications it had on their families when the mother of one of the daughters finally admitted to knowing about it 43 years later. Mary Miller and Kay McDonald gave birth to their daughters at the same hospital on the same day; Mary Miller ended up taking home Kay McDonald's biological daughter, Marti, and Kay McDonald took home the Millers' biological daughter, Sue. Once they got home, Mary Miller noticed something was a little off and told her husband that they had the wrong baby, but her husband, unconvinced and not wanting to offend their doctor, told her that it didn't matter and to forget about it. So she kept quiet for 43 years.
     This story gives great evidence for how important "nature" is versus "nurture." Marti, biologically the McDonalds' daughter, was always outgoing and popular unlike her less attractive and more serious Miller family members while Sue was always a bit introverted and more serious compared to the fun-loving McDonalds. Despite the girls' upbringing in different households, they displayed similar personality traits to their biological families. This begs the question as to how significant of a factor nurture actually is. Disregarding extreme influences, like being brought up by violent drug addicts or by a series of neglecting foster parents, how much does one's raising effect their personality? This story would suggest that it plays a very insignificant role. Once the switch is out in the open and the sisters start talking to their biological siblings, they immediately click more than they ever did with their non-biological siblings. It is rather bizarre to consider that much of our personalities are pre-determined by the chemical coding in our bodies, not necessarily by our upbringing.
     Branching off of this point, I'd like to bring up the possibly taboo subject of how unattractive people are treated versus how attractive people are treated and their corresponding reactions. Throughout the duration of this episode, one gets the impression that Marti and the McDonalds are rather significantly more attractive than Sue and the Millers. It just so happens that the McDonalds are also significantly more light-hearted and outgoing than the odd, serious, and strict Millers. Do you think there is any correlation? In general, it seems that more attractive people are in fact more popular. Perhaps because people are already more prone to like them on a first impression, they have fewer insecurities throughout their development, leading to more confidence and charisma than otherwise. Furthermore, it is not too often one sees a very attractive person who isn't relatively popular and well-liked. There is clearly some correlation between attractiveness and popularity even if it's uncomfortable to admit. But how about attractiveness and let's say...relative "oddness"? Perhaps if people are less likely to talk to you due to your looks, you develop less socially?
     Another point that sharply and rather uncomfortably stands out is that Mary Miller seems to be quite an interesting character. Before listening to the last third of the podcast, I thought she was utterly insane. Why on earth didn't she do something to change the fact that she brought the wrong baby home? Why decide to turn everyone's life upside-down 43 years later? Even after hearing the explanation in the third part that her husband was apparently controlling and did not allow her to make a fuss until he himself saw Sue's family resemblance 43 years later, I do not forgive her for her decision. Or at least I still don't like her - maybe that's it. She had a cold, factual way of breaking the news to the daughter she raised, Marti, that made Marti feel like she was trying to push her out of the family. She even wrote to Marti using the last name "McDonald." At the same time, Mary and the rest of the family eagerly invited Sue into their lives because they had known for a long time that she was their real daughter (it turns out even the other Miller kids figured Marti wasn't really their sister). How could they just shove aside Marti like that? After all they did raise her; she's theirs. I wouldn't think that biology alone would give someone such a claim to another person they've never met. And for being the wife of an evangelical preacher, she doesn't seem like a particularly good Christian. She kept someone else's baby knowing it wasn't hers, claiming that it was "God's will," she selfishly contorted the lives of two families by breaking the news 43 years later (as soon as her husband would let her) simply to get the burden off her chest without thought to the negative repercussions on others, and she vainly and cruelly told Marti that she never expected much from her because she wasn't actually theirs. Yeah, I guess you could say I just don't like her. But putting all of that judgment aside, what would you have done in her situation? No, I can't even take that question seriously. I think any sane person would have known to go to the doctor and express the concern that they gave her the wrong baby.
     But at least it made for an interesting story.


This blog is based on an episode of This American Life: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/360/Switched-At-Birth

Barry Schwartz: The Paradox of Choice

     Barry Schwartz insists that the overwhelming number of choices that our modern society offers paralyzes people and results in them being less satisfied than if there were fewer options. This completely contradicts the western society dogma that an increase in choice leads to an increase of personal freedom and therefore personal welfare. 
     Many points Schwartz makes make perfect sense. Too many choices lead one to believe that there is a perfect option, so if one is less than thrilled with the decision he makes, there is regret and self-blame for not picking a better one, even when the choice made was still a good one. Too many options also leads to paralysis. When faced with too many choices, some people opt to not even make a decision rather than go through all the effort of picking an option. I would be shocked if anyone hadn't had personal experience that supported this theory: trying to pick a brand of bread at the store, buying a pair of sunglasses, walking into the UConn Study Abroad Fair and quickly walking out because there're just too many options, half of which overlap with other choices represented (yes, you might guess that one is a personal experience). In some cases, there are too many choices.
     However, Schwartz brought up a few situations with which I did not agree. He said in this day and age, we are offered so much personal freedom for identity that every morning we wake up and have to decide who we want to be today. Although he may have been exaggerating a bit, this statement is a little extreme. Personal identity is not so much a decision as a state molded by one's personality and personal experience. If you're reinventing yourself every day, you're just not being honest with yourself. Schwartz also said that, as a professor, he assigns 20% less work to his students now than he did years ago because now their minds are occupied with such questions as when and who to marry, whether or not they should have kids before they start their career, etc. But as a college student, I disagree that these ponderings actually occupy a significant amount of time. If there are students sitting in their dorms right now wondering whether or not they should get married to their current significant other or wait a while, incapacitated from doing any other work at the same time, then I am quite ignorant. Sure, these are things people my age consider, but they're thoughts that occupy the free time sitting on the bus or at the dining hall table. I don't think anyone is spending so much actual time thinking about their future that they are unable to do as much work as any other student from years ago. 
     I would also like to hope that Schwartz is being a bit cynical when he says that our expectations are so high that we can no longer be pleasantly surprised. Just because there are more choices and opportunities now than there used to be does not mean we expect every single one of them to apply to us. Sure, if someone has the highest possible expectation for every situation they encounter, they are going to be disappointed a lot, but that applies to someone with the same mindset living 50 years ago. Having so many choices even makes it harder to predict what's going to happen in some ways, making a small surprise or bit of excitement here and there more likely. 
     I cannot help but disagree with Schwartz's key to happiness either. He said, perhaps a bit sarcastically, that low expectations are the secret to happiness. However, if one consistently has low expectations, including of themselves, they never have the ambition to do anything better than average, and then there is no satisfaction from obtaining a worthy goal. A life of low expectations is one of resignment and mediocrity, not happiness. 
     Perhaps the real key to happiness is a better method of organization for all of these options. Because it's true that with so many options, one of them is bound to be a very good fit for you specifically. It's simply a matter of finding it. For example, you will never hear me complain about having too many options for clothes, but I still much prefer online shopping to in-store shopping because of a lovely little tool the web offers: search filters. If you know what you're looking for, it's not that hard to find it. The more specific you are about what you want, the fewer options you have, and the easier it is to make a satisfying choice. Perhaps people need to implement such "search filters" of their own in real life. Walk into a situation already having a solid idea of what you want in order to quickly narrow down your options and make a more satisfying decision. If I went into that Study Abroad Fair with a better idea of where and when I wanted to go, I could have walked right up to the appropriate tables and gotten exactly the relevant information I needed. Learning from that experience, I now know to do some digging on the UConn study abroad website - which has many specific categories that make it easy to navigate - in order to find what I want to do before going to the next such fair. Then I'll be much more prepared to take advantage of that awesome resource. Yes, modern society offers a lot of choices, to the point that it can be overwhelming, but proper management of these options can lead to making some very satisfying decisions. 


This blog is based on a TED Talk by Barry Schwartz: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html

Dan Barber: How I Fell in Love with a Fish

     Dan Barber is a foodie who believes the current American agribusiness model for producing food is outdated, inefficient, and wasteful. First we over-fished the sea, and now man-made fish farms are highly polluting, have inefficient protein return ratios, and result in poor tasting fish. The best fish this man has ever tasted - the fish he fell in love with - comes from a ecologically based fish farm in Veta la Palma, Spain. Quite contrary to traditional American fish farms, this one actually purifies the water that comes through it and is completely self sustaining. The ecosystem within it has thrived to the point that it's become one of Europe's largest bird sanctuaries, and the owner doesn't even mind that they're eating some of his fish. Barber would urge America to adopt a similarly ecologically friendly agricultural system.
     But is this a reasonable request? The land that this Spanish fish farm is based on was a marshland before it was further flooded. Its conditions were already conducive to that of a wetland. Presumably the algae and some of the other important aquatic lifeforms were already somewhat established before it was transformed into a fish farm. How many other examples of farms like this exist in Europe? Is it fair to say that Miguel, the Spanish fish farmer, is an ingenious biologist with a greater ability than any other to create a self-sustaining farm, or did he just know how to recognize an ecosystem simply begging to thrive when he saw it? How many regions in America have the capability to thrive to the same extent with such little maintenance? I would venture a guess that most facilities trying to replicate Miguel's farm would need a little more spoon-feeding. 
     Fish farming is also very different from many other kinds of farming. Take cattle farming for example. In order to have a cattle farm as ecologically friendly and self-sustaining as Miguel's farm, even a small herd of cattle would require a large plot of land to freely graze. If we stopped grain-feeding cattle as well, each cow would not produce nearly as much meat as does the current mass-produced albeit unhealthy and mistreated cow. Reducing population density of animals on farms would also require more time and effort to collect the fewer resources (milk, eggs, the animals themselves, whatever), making all food even more expensive than it already is. 
     But all of this is not to say that I disagree with Barber. The current industrialized form of agriculture which the United States adheres to is a disgusting example of waste, pollution, and mistreatment of animals. I recently did a relatively extensive research paper on factory farming to build an argument for vegetarianism, and I learned more about it than I would have liked to. Without going into too much detail, I'll just toss out a few facts: factory farms produce the equivalent of 5 tons of waste for every American per year; livestock in this country produces 130 times more waste than the entire human population of the United States; livestock consumes 20 millions tons of protein every year but yields significantly less; 10's of 1,000's of chickens are housed on each factory farm, giving less than 1 square foot of space to each bird; every second in the U.S., 287 chickens, 3.68 pigs, and 1.12 cows are slaughtered. But that's enough rambling on (and I didn't even horrify you with any details of the slaughter process). My point is, I agree with Barber on the point that industrialized farming is wasteful and inefficient. Furthermore, I believe it to be a violation of basic ethics. Smaller, more ethically friendly farms would not only be healthier for the environment for also for the animals and, in turn, the people eating them. I support small farms 100%. I even worked on one for the last four years. But taking better care of livestock means a significantly greater investment of time and results in a more expensive product. Would people be willing to make this compromise? Would we even be able to sustain the entire population with such a radically different system? As lovely as this idea is of every farm being like Miguel's, how realistic is it? Would it even be possible? Or would we quickly fall back down the track of attempting to make it more efficient through industrialization of agriculture? The chickens vote small farms, but no one wants to listen to them. 


This blog is based on a TED Talk by Dan Barber: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_how_i_fell_in_love_with_a_fish.html

Russel Foster: Why Do We Sleep?

     Russel Foster could not have made his point any clearer: sleep is essential. Despite the modern view of sleep as a waste of time, not only does it improve mental functions as a whole; sleep deprivation causes a myriad of problems, even some potentially dangerous ones. 

     The shift in attitude towards the idea of sleep over the past several centuries is incredible. In Shakespeare's time, it was hailed as a sweet and valuable "golden chain," yet by the time Thomas Edison rolls around, it's being condemned as "a criminal waste of time." In this modern day, we view sleep as an impediment to our extensive to-do lists and busy schedules.

     How did this enormous paradigm shift occur? Why? Perhaps it's because in Shakespeare's day, they had no choice but to sleep when it was dark unless they wanted to be carrying around oil lamps. Once electricity was harnessed and we had the power to create artificial day, people began to eagerly take advantage of it, neglecting their sacred sleep. 

     Perhaps this shift is in part due to how work has changed as well. Centuries or even just decades ago, work stayed at the workplace. Work was for work and was a very separate thing from home. Now that we have the ability to connect to our work wherever we want, we're taking it home with us. Not only do students have more homework, but employees in many fields are expected to continue work at home - or at least could not reasonably finish their monumental tasks solely during the hours at the workplace. 

     This change in sleep habits is undoubtedly a contributor to the skyrocketing occurrence of obesity as well. Sleep deprivation causes people to crave carbs, particularly sugar, in order to help keep them awake. Stress from more time-demanding jobs leads to less sleep which leads to more stress from sleep deprivation, causing a destructive and costly cycle.

     So sleep is important. Foster drilled that into our heads with many points. But in a society that ignores this, how can we allow ourselves to get as much sleep as we need? Our society does not exactly accommodate the time for what Foster considers to be adequate sleep, as I somewhat previously touched on. Not only does it not accommodate time, but it actually shuns those who do get enough sleep. Many people today would consider someone who actually got to sleep for 8 hours as lazy or at least resent them for it. Instead of taking pride in how well-rested one is, people boast about how little sleep they've gotten in the past week. It would actually be a tremendous effort to get enough sleep in Foster’s terms. He defines too little sleep as when you need an alarm clock to wake yourself up. I can’t even imagine sleeping enough every day that I didn’t have to forcefully drag myself out of bed. How would I even have time to do everything I needed to? But I suppose that’s the point. Until society recognizes the importance of sleep and correspondingly reduces the demands it places on people, most of the population is going to walk around sleep deprived. While some might say that’s never going to happen since you’d be asking businesses to lessen their productivity by reducing demand on employees, others – perhaps including Foster – would argue that a well-rested population is much more productive and creative than a sleep-deprived one anyway.

     Public schools are one example of how the current structure of society inhibits proper sleep. Most high schools start at around 7:30, which is really just a cruel joke because, as Foster said, teenagers are hardwired to go to sleep late and wake up late. Right now, most teenagers get 5 out of a recommended 9 hours of sleep on a school night. In order to get those nine hours, high schoolers would have to go to sleep around 9:30…Yeah that’s going to happen. Unless the system changes, it would be nearly impossible for a teen to get their “required” amount of sleep. And that is really quite ironic, considering sleep deprivation decreases critical thinking skills, creativity, and the ability to learn, all of which are required at school. Our current society makes it almost impossible to allow our brains to function at their full capacity.

     Getting away from how society’s view on sleep has changed and how that makes it nearly impossible to get enough sleep, Foster made a number of other interesting points. Sleep consumes 36% of an average person’s life. That’s one third of their life. One third. You’re sixty? Great, you’ve only been conscious for forty years of it. Isn’t that incredible? Out of my 18 years of life, I’ve really only “lived” for 12 of those years. 6 entire years have just been spent sacked out under some blankets. And for such a fundamental process, something everyone has to do in order to survive and something we’ve probably been doing since early in our evolution, we don’t know why we do it yet. For all of the technology we have and sleep experiments that have been conducted, we have yet to know its purpose with certainty. Foster also points out that there is a difference between sleep and sedation. This made me wonder exactly what that difference is. Does sedation just put certain parts of the brain to sleep? How does sleep medicine – which induces true sleep, not just sedation – trigger such a complex state that involves parts of the brain that aren’t even turned on when we’re awake?

     And going off on quite a tangent, all of this talk about sleeping got me started thinking about dreaming. If part of the reason for sleep is to store memories, are dreams a result of this shuffling and filing process? Why do we dream? And a question that’s perplexed me for a long time: why can’t we remember some of our dreams? Or why do we wake up remembering bits but slowly completely lose the ability to recall even the slightest detail?

     It seems sleep is quite a mystery.


This blog is based on a TED Talk by Russel Foster: http://www.ted.com/talks/russell_foster_why_do_we_sleep.html