Posts Tagged favorites
Stewardship of the Land
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Homesteading on May 3rd, 2010
Last fall, in anticipation of raising pigs, we plowed up a section of the field and put down a seed mixture consisting of yummy, nutritious, and easy-growing plants that pigs like: rye grass, sudan grass, field peas, and rape-seed. Although wild pigs live exclusively on forage, we don’t have enough space for us to raise them that way. We are using feed, but we also wanted to supplement with forage as much as possible. For one thing, the other plants would add variety to the pigs’ diet. For another, rooting around in the field would make the pigs happier, since rooting is a basic part of “what pigs do.” And of course, there could be some financial savings if the calories gleaned from the field translated into lower feed consumption.
From one perspective, open pasture is nature’s solar panel. Grass and other field plants capture the sunlight that falls on them and turn it into calories through the wonder of photosynthesis. Pastures are not, typically, composed of calories that humans can use, since we lack the physical adaptations that would allow us to digest grass very efficiently, but certainly other animals are more than happy to consume those calories, and convert into yummy meat (if you’re into that sort of thing). Anybody who’s ever had a garden knows how much work it can take to squeeze a meaningful amount of food out of a vegetable plot. Anybody who’s ever had to mow a lawn knows how little work it takes to grow grass, as well as plantain, dandelion, clover, violets, and other such “weeds”. So, the idea of something that eats grass and “weeds” and turns it into meat is awfully darn appealing (again, if you’re into that sort of thing).
Twice now, this year, the grass in the field has gotten tall enough that I have mowed it, and seeing the cut grass composting in clumps on the ground has ticked me off every time. The solar energy stored in that grass is incredibly valuable. It is one of the only truly sustainable forms of energy that exists. If I am going to call that field “mine” and bend its form to my will, then I feel like I have an obligation to do something more with that energy than leave it to rot. I have interrupted the life-cycle of the grass. I have deprived the animals that would live in the high brush of their habitat. I have denied the trees that would grow there the opportunity to take advantage of this sunny, clear spot. And for what? So I can have a pretty view out my window every morning?
For all the ways that we are just apes, I do think that humans have something that other animals lack. Our big brains give us a unique ability to imagine the world as we would like it to be. Likewise, they give us the technological wherewithal to realize our imaginings, for good or for ill, on a Herculean scale. Other animals may sometimes cause destruction in the same way that we do, but I doubt that they have the same intellectual capability to realize what they are doing. They are what they are, and they live or die, thrive or decline, on the merits of their selves. And, really, so do we, it’s just that we (might) have the unique ability to make conscious choices that change “what we are,” and so to shift the outcome.
When I look at all the environmental damage that the human urge to modify has caused, I sometimes revolt, and wish that we could “just be animals” again. But of course, that genie is out of the bottle and won’t go back. I took some comfort in the words of Joel Salatin, who says:
Plants and animals should be provided a habitat that allows them to express their physiological distinctiveness. Respecting and honoring the pigness of the pig is a foundation for societal health.
The comfort comes from the realization that looking at how things are and imagining how they could be is just as much a part of a human’s psychological distinctiveness as rooting in the ground is a pig’s. There’s no sense hating it or denying it. Just like a pig wouldn’t truly be fulfilled as a pig if it couldn’t root in the earth, I wouldn’t be truly fulfilled as a human if I didn’t see things and imagine how they might be better. So, I accept that doing so is just a part of my unique contribution to nature. Pigs root. Chickens peck. And humans cannot leave well enough alone.
But idle hands are the devil’s plaything, and a clever clever human is apt to make changes to his or her environment, for good or for ill. If I poison the plants in my yard and then put down sod and treat the land with weed killer so nothing else can grow there, I will have made the land one kind of “better.” But it is a very expensive form of “better.” Monocultures are fundamentally unstable. They require massive inputs of energy in order to sustain themselves. I will have to apply fertilizer to make up for the nitrogen that the lack of legumes like clover is causing. I will have to use weed killer or manual labor to keep out unapproved plants. I will probably burn gasoline to run a mower and a string-trimmer and a leaf blower. What I will have done is taken nature’s solar panel and turned it from a net energy producer to a net energy consumer.
Another option is to look at that land and ask myself, “What is that land capable of doing, in a way that will sustain me without fundamentally depleting it?” The field by my house is too small to raise a cow on, never mind a whole herd, but my few acres could possibly support a sheep. Better yet, they already support a colony of rabbits! If I want the grass to be short, is it better to expend my own energy to cut it, and to then leave it to rot in the field, or to bring in animals that will cut the grass for me, and will use that energy to sustain themselves? Even if you set aside the potential for those animals to become meat in the future, the answer to me seems clear. Fossil fuel being shipped from around the world so that I can run a mower to cut some grass and leave it to rot? Or happy sheep or bunnies living their lives off that grass, providing entertainment, companionship, and possibly even wool, milk, or meat to me? There’s no question to me which one is more Right.
The bottom line is that it feels fundamentally disrespectful for me to mow the field and nothing more. It’s disrespectful to the plants that would have grown if I hadn’t mowed, and to the animals that could have lived off of those plants. If I was to leave the field alone, then I don’t think that I would have any responsibility towards it, but when I divert the field from the path that it would take in my absence, I feel like I also take on a responsibility towards it, and leaving that grass to lay in the field doesn’t feel to me like I’m fulfilling that responsibility.
Social Construction of Sexy
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Money and Marketing on February 2nd, 2010
Your preferences are not your own.
One factor that influences your preferences is the perception of what other people are liking. I read in a Wired magazine (and, sorry, but I can’t find a link, nor am I going to dig through my old copies of Wired to find the article) about a study that was performed to determine the effect of people’s perceptions of others’ preferences on popularity. A database of obscure musical tracks was created and groups of people in the study were invited to listen to the tracks and rate them. In the control groups, the tracks started out unrated, and the ratings evolved solely on the basis of the preferences of the participants. In the test groups, songs’ ratings were pre-set, as if the study had been ongoing before the participants arrived, giving participants the perception that other people had already weighed in on the songs’ merit.
Surprise, surprise. Very few songs were consistently rated as stinkers and hits. For the most part, participants preferred songs that they believed had been previously highly rated, and disliked songs that they believed had been previously rated down. If you asked the participants what they liked about a certain song, they definitely wouldn’t say, “I liked that it was rated high when I got here,” but the numbers show that was exactly what was happening. The exact same participant, placed into a different control group, could have ended up liking a totally different song, and hating the one that he or she had loved in an alternate reality.
To sum up: there are some things that people are very prone not to like (the smell of feces and rotting meat), and other things that people are very prone to like (sugar, opiates), but the vast majority of things fall into a middle ground where our like or dislike of them is shaped by multiple factors, one of which is our perception of whether other people like or dislike them.
If you think the same isn’t true when it comes to “sexy,” you’re wrong.
Are the people in the image above sexy?
Preference is a feedback loop, especially when Media gets involved. What individual people “like” is dependent on a variety of factors. Oh, you may think you like what you like, but expectation and familiarity play a huge role. Ever been loving a mystery-dish right up until you found out what was in it? There you go.
Media primarily presents content designed to appeal to the largest number of people—the lowest common denominator. The images that are presented are not necessarily inherently sexy, if such a concept can even be said to exist. They are a social construct of sexy that is the result of constant refinement of the images that are presented by media and taken in by consumers. Washboard abs, big boobs stuck onto a bony chest: we disproportionately find these, and other, physical characteristics to be sexy, because they are constantly and exclusively presented to us by media as sexy. This leads to the sub-conscious conclusion that many, many other people must also find these things sexy, which increases our own propensity to find them sexy. There’s your feedback loop.
I came across a great example of the social construction of sexy recently:
There is plenty to critique in this ad, but what I’d like to focus on here is the fact that, in order to create your “ideal” woman, you are allowed to change her: lips, breasts, and butt. That is all. The flat tummy is apparently non-negotiable. So are the skinny legs. What if my idea of a sexy woman looks like this?
That option is not supported by the ad. This woman must not be sexy. Because if washboard abs and big boobs on a bony chest are sexy, then the lack of those things must be un-sexy.
But the fact is that CamGirlKitten (I am told) makes a very comfortable living producing pornography for legions of fans who do, in fact, find her sexy. Although they probably don’t talk about it in public. CamGirlKitten and other BBW porn stars like her are relegated to the realm of “fetish,” or, “kink,” which basically means, “Anything outside of the relatively narrow subset of physical characteristics that are reinforced as desirable by mainstream media.” The powerful negative association that the words, “kink,” and, “fetish,” have with many people is indicative of how strong the social urge to appear to share others’ sexual preferences is.
And it’s a shame, for many reasons. First and foremost, the constructed definition of “sexy” has been so refined that only a fractional percentage of actual, real live human beings match it. This means the vast majority of us are constantly dealing with the message that we are not sexy, not desirable, not attractive. Some people just internalize that message, which is a tragedy, but it’s probably good for some companies’ bottom lines, since they can then sell products that purport to fix the un-sexy condition. Some people manage to reject the message, but they have to deal with the social stigma that comes with such a subversive act. Imagine that: thinking of yourself as sexy is a subversive act.
The second reason it’s a shame is that most of us are participating in propagating that message, which means we are thinking of others as not sexy, not desirable, not attractive, largely because they do not fit the constructed definition of “sexy,” when in fact we might find those people sexy, desirable, and attractive if we could just step outside of that construct. And I’m not talking about pretending to find people sexy in order to “be a good person.” I’m not talking about a pity-fuck. I’m saying that human preference and sexual response is varied enough that most of us are capable of being sincerely attracted to more than just that fractional percent of people who have physical characteristics that are portrayed in the media, and by limiting ourselves to those characteristics, we’re missing out on opportunities for enjoyable and fulfilling interactions with other people.
Your assignment: If you consume mainstream pornography, spend one week consuming only pornography that features models with body types that differ from the mainstream norm (skinny, flat abs, huge penis, big boobs, rock hard pecs, etc…). Notice how your sexual response to them changes. It may take longer than a week to notice a change, depending on various factors.
If you do not consume pornography, you may be able to accomplish a similar result by having sexual fantasies about people who have body types that differ from the mainstream norm. Fortunately, such people are ALL AROUND YOU, so you should have no shortage of material. Imagine them naked. Then imagine them sexy. In case you think that this assignment is in some way inappropriate, keep in mind that YOU ARE POSSIBLY ALREADY DOING IT. If you are like most people, you are already imagining the people around as NOT SEXY all the time. So a shift to imagining them as sexy instead isn’t much of a change.
Is Social Welfare Morally Obligated?
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Government and Law, Money and Marketing on July 30th, 2009
Some people like to attribute the success of the wealthy largely to the efforts of the individual. Others like to attribute success to circumstances. But the stratospheric heights to which Americans’ wealth can grow are enabled first and foremost by a system that encourages a vast gulf between the richest and the poorest. Our socioeconomic system is based on people profiting not just on their merits and circumstances, but also at the expense of others.
It’s easier to see this principle at work on the international stage. Missives From Marx writes:
I pretty regularly hear people suggest how great America is compared to other nations. My initial response to hearing this sort of thing is the following: that’s kind of like saying that it seems a lot nicer to live in the plantation’s mansion, rather than in the slave quarters.
America doesn’t exist in isolation from other nations. Of course things are nicer in America, but that’s largely because of things like accumulation by dispossession (which I discussed here). We usually notice only one side of the coin—”America is great”—and ignore the other side—”what relations of exploitation and domination have we entered into that allow us to be so wealthy?”
People in America aren’t rioting because they have their bellies full and cable TV to watch—all thanks to an exploitative economic system that rapes the world to serve their interests.
So, you see a great plantation mansion, I see slave quarters.
You see $1 flip-flops, I see a sweatshop.
You can’t have one without the other.
It’s my belief that the pattern of exploitation that elevates America above foreign countries is also played out domestically, elevating the wealthy further and further above the poor. “As above, so below,” goes the saying. Patterns that play out in our interpersonal lives also play out in our communities, in the government, and on the international stage.
Capitalists sometimes argue against welfare or government-provided health care on the basis that poor people are poor because of their own choices, and therefore don’t deserve those things. Health care, food, shelter, and education must be the province of the rich, who have demonstrated their worthiness by becoming rich. And being rich means paying less to the people who produce the things that you have, so as to keep more for yourself. The concept of wealth cannot exist outside of a hierarchy in which those above deny control of resources to those below and keep those resources for themselves. So it’s incorrect to claim that those below are failing and those above are succeeding solely on their own merits. Or at least, it’s incorrect to suggest that those with equal merit have equal access to success.
Certainly individual merit factors in, but there is an overriding context in which individuals succeed or fail. In his book, Guns, Germs, and Steel
I believe that people are fundamentally compassionate, and that the “individual merit” argument is at least in part a means of rationalizing the act of denying basic necessities to others. If we truly operated in a system where people were free to succeed or fail based on their merits, then we would owe them nothing. But we operate in a system where each person’s gains are built on the enforced loss of others; where those who are higher up use their considerable resources and influence to reinforce their position even when they no longer earn it; and where the major role of merit is how high up on the exploitation-hierarchy you fall. Given all that, and given that we continue to perpetuate the exploitation-hierarchy system, what moral obligation do we have to those below us on the hierarchy?
Military Tactics vs. Police Tactics In The “War On Drugs”
Posted by Joshua Bardwell in Consensual Crimes, Government and Law on June 22nd, 2009
In a previous post, I discussed how the metaphorical “War on Drugs” has become deadly literal. I then discussed the case of Derek Copp, who was shot by police during a raid of his home when he moved his hand to shield his eyes from their flashlights. Derek’s case is hardly isolated. Any time armed people break into someone’s home unannounced, the chances of a casualty go up.
There are casualties on both sides. In the case of Kathryn Johnston, the mortality was the ninety-year-old homeowner, who probably thought she was being robbed when she fired at the people who were breaking in her metro-Atlanta door late at night. In the case of Ryan Frederick, the mortality was a police officer, and Ryan was convicted of manslaughter (although I’m not sure why shooting at someone who is breaking in your door in the middle of the night should be a crime).
Police argue that no-knock raids are necessary to prevent suspects from destroying evidence when they realize the cops are at the door, but I wonder whether other techniques could accomplish the same goals while reducing the likelihood of casualties. I read about a case (sorry, extensive googling failed to find the link) in which police knew that kids were in the home and so opted to make a traffic stop and arrest the suspect on the side of the road, in order to spare the kids the risk of an armed raid. The mom didn’t realize that the traffic stop was anything but routine until it was too late.
After reading about that case, I started to wonder why no-knock raids were the norm, when more subtle and creative techniques could be just as effective and safer for everyone involved. One obvious answer is that the police are operating with a fundamentally military mindset, and so they choose to confront the “enemy” with overwhelming force. Is this answer too simple? Is there more to the situation? Let me know in the comments.
-
Love Live Grow- Goes All the Way to the Environment May 22, 2012The latest magazine ad to catch my eye: “THE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS CAR THAT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE ENVIRONMENT. A gas-free commute is great. But sometimes you want to get out of the city and actually see some of that environment. With the Chevrolet Volt, you can drive 35 miles gas- and emissions-free and up to 375 miles with a full charge and a full tan […]
- These are the Fat FAQs May 17, 2012I just couldn’t resist that title. Say “Fat FAQs” fast a couple of times! Thanks to those of you who replied in the “rude questions” thread. I’ve taken ideas from that thread, cleaned up some of the concepts from the rude comments the other night, and pulled ideas from other conversations I’ve had and questions I’ve been asked privately. I’ve strung them all […]
- Why I Call It Fat-Hate Plus An Invite to Ask Rude Questions May 9, 2012When I talk about various topics related to fat acceptance, I often use the phrase “fat-hate” to refer to the harmful attitudes that people have. Some people might think that’s a bit hyperbolic when it seems like the topic on the table is just dieting, weight loss, nutrition, health, etc. It seems clear to me, though, that the public opinion on those topics […]
- Goes All the Way to the Environment May 22, 2012
