Despite her illness, it seemed as if she has moved on and accepted the fact that she was ill. She accepted the reality a long time ago that she would have to live until her death with her cancer. I don't know if I would be able to keep my sanity if I were in her shoes-I wouldn't be able to retain my fear of when death would appear around the corner. I wonder how she is able to deal with her reality. It hurts to see her take medications that won't be able to cure her illness completely. I never started the conversation about how she feels about her own illness because I felt as though that was too personal-even though I'm going to keep her anonymous. I only smiled and talked casually like with any of my friends.
I still remember when she heard her cancer spread and if she wanted to take chemotherapy. I was shocked but I knew I had to stay strong so I could reassure her that everything will be okay. I think she was able to move on and accept her illness because of time. She had a lot of time to really think about the situation she was placed in, and probably decided that crying over it wouldn't do much. There are also things she wants to do and accomplish before her death, and I think that is the main reason she continues to push herself to live as long as she can. Right now, I see her as a strong independent figure that continues to teach me the importance of living. When I watch her, or just talk to her, I always question myself if I'm really living my life to the fullest-whatever that means. If there's something I want to do before death, than maybe I should do it sooner than later. Watching her sometimes frustrates me-especially on those days I sleep in late and end up doing nothing productive. Having an ill person so close in my life makes me question myself if I'm making my own life meaningful at all.
She is definitly stronger than me mentally, but she's only human. I think cancer has made her more tired-and that shows human vulnerability. The fact that I can't do anything to make her feel better also shows how vulnerable I am as another person. (The same would apply to her doctors.) The fact that her cancer is most likely getting worse (despite her medications) shows her mortality as a person. It's scary, but watching her made me see visually how weak people are in general.
There's a few insights from other sources that applies to her. When the guest speaker came in class to talk about her husband's illness and death I felt uncomfortable because it reminded me of when she was in the hospital after her surgery (right now she's at home). The guest speaker said that she wanted 'the doctors to see her husband as a person-an artist,father,and husband-and not just a cancer.' Some doctors I liked more than others and I think her insight has to do with that. I liked a particular nurse because she was really sweet to me and her other visitors. I felt like she didn't see the patient just as a 'cancer.' There was a doctor I particualarly disliked because he just checked her and moved on-he was just doing his job. He was emotionless-and at the time I thought he was a complete jerk. From the book, "Mountains Beyond Mountains," I found it insightful that Dr. Paul Farmer honestly just wanted to make Haiti a better place and never put money before curing patients. Reading the book made me wish that there were more purely devoted doctors like himself-
Thursday, December 23, 2010
HW#26: Looking Back and Forth in Unit
What I learned so far:
1.) There are flaws in the U.S. health care system that has infinite reasons to deny coverage so the companies can maximize their profits. (Sicko)
2.) Health unsurance in the U.S. started in the congress. President Nixon approved HMO's around 1973 for the purpose of gaining profit. (Sicko)
3.) One of the main reasons why U.S health insurance is exspensive is because of indigent care. Individuals who do not have money tend to go to emergency rooms which are more pricey than normal doctor appointments. Public hospitals pay the money which can cause the hospital to collapse. (Andy)
4.) Doctors sometimes make decisions through conversations with each other instead of with the patient. The issue of consent gets confusing. (Near Death)
5.) Doctors pursuade ill patients toward certain 'care.' In the film, a doctor told the patient the choice of rejecting tubes going in his body again was 'unreasonable' and said that money was not the main issue at hand. (Near Death)
So far in the unit, I learned a glimpse of the history of U.S. health insurance system and the contrast of U.S health insurance to those of Canada and Europe. I also learned that health insurance and the issue of the relationships between doctor and patient is not simple. The film 'Sicko' was helpful in having a better understanding of the dominant social practices of illness and dying. For some reason, I didn't think much about health insurance, and the film helped me develop an opinion on the system. It gave me some insight into the vague flaws of the health insurance in the U.S. and introduced places that provided free universal health care. Not only was the film interesting, but it was a helpful introduction to give me a sense of the reality of health insurance. It was easy to follow and helped me gain interest in the subject of health insurance and how this connects to the dominant practices of our unit.
Another helpful source was the documentary 'Near Death.' Our dominant model of allopathic medicine is portrayed well in the film and helped me deeply think about the dominant practices of dying. Doctors in these hospitals deal with dying and ill patients all the time, and sadly, there are times when they cannot base decisions solely based on the sick patient. The film so far has made me question theses dominant practices, and if perhaps our society does not treat death as a serious topic.
For the last part of the unit, I think exploring the alternatives and possible solutions in the flaws of allopathic treatment and our health insurance system. I'd like to learn more and make a contrast between different countries when dealing with health insurace. Free universal health insurance seems like the best solution, but then why did many Republicans disagree with Obama's plan? A difference in opinion means that not everyone thinks free health care is best-I like to learn why, or at least their opinion.
1.) There are flaws in the U.S. health care system that has infinite reasons to deny coverage so the companies can maximize their profits. (Sicko)
2.) Health unsurance in the U.S. started in the congress. President Nixon approved HMO's around 1973 for the purpose of gaining profit. (Sicko)
3.) One of the main reasons why U.S health insurance is exspensive is because of indigent care. Individuals who do not have money tend to go to emergency rooms which are more pricey than normal doctor appointments. Public hospitals pay the money which can cause the hospital to collapse. (Andy)
4.) Doctors sometimes make decisions through conversations with each other instead of with the patient. The issue of consent gets confusing. (Near Death)
5.) Doctors pursuade ill patients toward certain 'care.' In the film, a doctor told the patient the choice of rejecting tubes going in his body again was 'unreasonable' and said that money was not the main issue at hand. (Near Death)
So far in the unit, I learned a glimpse of the history of U.S. health insurance system and the contrast of U.S health insurance to those of Canada and Europe. I also learned that health insurance and the issue of the relationships between doctor and patient is not simple. The film 'Sicko' was helpful in having a better understanding of the dominant social practices of illness and dying. For some reason, I didn't think much about health insurance, and the film helped me develop an opinion on the system. It gave me some insight into the vague flaws of the health insurance in the U.S. and introduced places that provided free universal health care. Not only was the film interesting, but it was a helpful introduction to give me a sense of the reality of health insurance. It was easy to follow and helped me gain interest in the subject of health insurance and how this connects to the dominant practices of our unit.
Another helpful source was the documentary 'Near Death.' Our dominant model of allopathic medicine is portrayed well in the film and helped me deeply think about the dominant practices of dying. Doctors in these hospitals deal with dying and ill patients all the time, and sadly, there are times when they cannot base decisions solely based on the sick patient. The film so far has made me question theses dominant practices, and if perhaps our society does not treat death as a serious topic.
For the last part of the unit, I think exploring the alternatives and possible solutions in the flaws of allopathic treatment and our health insurance system. I'd like to learn more and make a contrast between different countries when dealing with health insurace. Free universal health insurance seems like the best solution, but then why did many Republicans disagree with Obama's plan? A difference in opinion means that not everyone thinks free health care is best-I like to learn why, or at least their opinion.
Monday, December 20, 2010
HW#25: Response to Sicko
Precis:
50 million people in America do not have health insurance, however Michael Moore wants to criticize the health care system itself and the problems with it despite having insurance. Health care insurance in the U.S do not cover all costs and works hard in finding excuses not to pay. The system doesn’t really ‘care’ for the people, since it is a business in goals of achieving massive profit. In fact, the system used money to destroy Hillary Clinton’s health care plan and succeeded. Michael Moore than presents an alternative, where in places like Canada and Europe, there is a universal health care system for all people.
Evidence:
Specific Pieces of evidence to support his thesis (The U.S health care system is inadequate):
* The Health care system maximizes denial reasons to gain profit. Examples of reasons to decline coverage would be: 'pre-existing conditions',ambulance emergencies,some cancer,heart disease, and diabetes.
* During Bush's administration, the government paid the elderly to get prescription through pharmaceuticals but the elderly ended up paying more.
These two pieces of evidence supports his thesis of how the U.S health care system is inadequate and is lacking to help the sick. The first piece of evidence gives an example of how the system is all about profit-motive moreso than the emotional devotion to cure and help more people. This is precisely why the system is so poor in their job, because the people are only in for the money when massive amounts of money should be used to help the ill. The second piece of evidence shows a sense of betrayal. The reform prescription under Bush's administration seemed to be supportive of the elderly, when really it was a system to have the elderly spend more money. The system is not only money obsessive, but manipulative and unfair.
Fact Check:
On CNN's fact check that I had to examine, it was stated in the interview that health care is not necessarily 'free' in places Sicko said it was. (France, Britain)The people there pay higher tax rates in the U.S. This was something Moore neglected to mention as he praised the health care system where it was provided for 'free.'
From doing some research, I can tell Michael Moore neglected the negative aspects of the health care system in other areas:
"So far France has been able to hold down the burden on patients through a combination of price controls and increased government spending, but the latter effort has led to higher taxes for both employers and workers. In 1990, 7% of health-care expenditures were financed out of general revenue taxes, and the rest came from mandatory payroll taxes. By 2003, the general revenue figure had grown to 40%, and it's still not enough. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985 and has ballooned to $13.5 billion."
(Quote from: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm)
This quote shows that the French Health Care system in which Moore spoke as an example of the best system, wasn't a perfect system. The U.S. insurace companies can definitly learn a lesson or two from France, but I think Moore should have mentioned these facts that I found. Watching the film, I thought something was odd about how Michael Moore made other health care systems so wonderful and where all the money to care all these ill people came from. It's from the high taxes.
Just to make sure I found another site that says, "Finally, no discussion of highly taxed nations would be complete without including France. With a top marginal tax rate on average workers of about 40% (and a top tax on high-income workers of nearly 50%), France is long-known for sacrificing economic growth to social benefits handed out by government."
This makes complete sense now, and why the people in France seem to have so many 'benefits.'
Sources:
The French Lesson in Health care: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
12 Countries with the Highest & LowestTax Rates: http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/
Response:
In general, I thought the movie Sicko was interesting, while it was very one-sided and was a complete propaganda. I found the film touching and provacative. I can tell Moore just wanted to throw in a bunch of facts to support his views on the flaws of the U.S health care system even though it was random and out of order. I knew that in a Capitalist system, everyone always has a profit-motive in mind and health care is just another form of business-I just didn't know how bad it was. The list of reasons to decline covering for costs struck me the most. He made the people in France (and other places) seem happy and shook their heads when asked about the system in the U.S. The film made me think twice about our health care system and the flaws that come with it.
Even though Moore failed to voice the other side of his argument to make himself sound justified throughout: the film definitly made me think and question about the dominant social practices around the unit. In our society, we as people want to believe that the government and these health insurance companies will provide us all the care because they really want to 'help' us. I think illness and dying in our society is taken as a 'business' because clearly no company wants to spend money on illness and diseases that are costly. This is wrong, but it is the truth that I have to deal with. Perhaps before watching the film and learning about the unit, I was narrow-minded on the sensitive topic: why would companies under the Capitalist system care about people they don't know if its going to cost billions of dollars?
50 million people in America do not have health insurance, however Michael Moore wants to criticize the health care system itself and the problems with it despite having insurance. Health care insurance in the U.S do not cover all costs and works hard in finding excuses not to pay. The system doesn’t really ‘care’ for the people, since it is a business in goals of achieving massive profit. In fact, the system used money to destroy Hillary Clinton’s health care plan and succeeded. Michael Moore than presents an alternative, where in places like Canada and Europe, there is a universal health care system for all people.
Evidence:
Specific Pieces of evidence to support his thesis (The U.S health care system is inadequate):
* The Health care system maximizes denial reasons to gain profit. Examples of reasons to decline coverage would be: 'pre-existing conditions',ambulance emergencies,some cancer,heart disease, and diabetes.
* During Bush's administration, the government paid the elderly to get prescription through pharmaceuticals but the elderly ended up paying more.
These two pieces of evidence supports his thesis of how the U.S health care system is inadequate and is lacking to help the sick. The first piece of evidence gives an example of how the system is all about profit-motive moreso than the emotional devotion to cure and help more people. This is precisely why the system is so poor in their job, because the people are only in for the money when massive amounts of money should be used to help the ill. The second piece of evidence shows a sense of betrayal. The reform prescription under Bush's administration seemed to be supportive of the elderly, when really it was a system to have the elderly spend more money. The system is not only money obsessive, but manipulative and unfair.
Fact Check:
On CNN's fact check that I had to examine, it was stated in the interview that health care is not necessarily 'free' in places Sicko said it was. (France, Britain)The people there pay higher tax rates in the U.S. This was something Moore neglected to mention as he praised the health care system where it was provided for 'free.'
From doing some research, I can tell Michael Moore neglected the negative aspects of the health care system in other areas:
"So far France has been able to hold down the burden on patients through a combination of price controls and increased government spending, but the latter effort has led to higher taxes for both employers and workers. In 1990, 7% of health-care expenditures were financed out of general revenue taxes, and the rest came from mandatory payroll taxes. By 2003, the general revenue figure had grown to 40%, and it's still not enough. The French national insurance system has been running constant deficits since 1985 and has ballooned to $13.5 billion."
(Quote from: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm)
This quote shows that the French Health Care system in which Moore spoke as an example of the best system, wasn't a perfect system. The U.S. insurace companies can definitly learn a lesson or two from France, but I think Moore should have mentioned these facts that I found. Watching the film, I thought something was odd about how Michael Moore made other health care systems so wonderful and where all the money to care all these ill people came from. It's from the high taxes.
Just to make sure I found another site that says, "Finally, no discussion of highly taxed nations would be complete without including France. With a top marginal tax rate on average workers of about 40% (and a top tax on high-income workers of nearly 50%), France is long-known for sacrificing economic growth to social benefits handed out by government."
This makes complete sense now, and why the people in France seem to have so many 'benefits.'
Sources:
The French Lesson in Health care: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
12 Countries with the Highest & LowestTax Rates: http://www.businesspundit.com/12-countries-with-the-highest-lowest-tax-rates/
Response:
In general, I thought the movie Sicko was interesting, while it was very one-sided and was a complete propaganda. I found the film touching and provacative. I can tell Moore just wanted to throw in a bunch of facts to support his views on the flaws of the U.S health care system even though it was random and out of order. I knew that in a Capitalist system, everyone always has a profit-motive in mind and health care is just another form of business-I just didn't know how bad it was. The list of reasons to decline covering for costs struck me the most. He made the people in France (and other places) seem happy and shook their heads when asked about the system in the U.S. The film made me think twice about our health care system and the flaws that come with it.
Even though Moore failed to voice the other side of his argument to make himself sound justified throughout: the film definitly made me think and question about the dominant social practices around the unit. In our society, we as people want to believe that the government and these health insurance companies will provide us all the care because they really want to 'help' us. I think illness and dying in our society is taken as a 'business' because clearly no company wants to spend money on illness and diseases that are costly. This is wrong, but it is the truth that I have to deal with. Perhaps before watching the film and learning about the unit, I was narrow-minded on the sensitive topic: why would companies under the Capitalist system care about people they don't know if its going to cost billions of dollars?
Saturday, December 18, 2010
HW#24- Illness and Dying Book Part 3
Bibliographic Info:
Title: Mountains Beyond Mountains
Author: Tracy Kidder
Publisher: The Random House Publishing Group
Year Published: 2003
Precis:
Tracy Kidder (the author) takes on a journey with Dr. Paul Farmer. Unlike most doctors, Farmer is devoted in actually curing his patients and pursues his goal to send medicine and care to countries that need it most (i.e Haiti) He walks miles and miles to check in on his Haitian patients, take long plane rides to and from Haiti, and speaks about the situation in these poor countries in books and in conferences. He is a doctor who represents the people of Haiti who are unable to speak for themselves because of their poverty and illness, and is willing to spend his whole life doing so. He should be a role model for other doctors.
Quotes/Responses:
"You're a great guy." I said, putting a hand on his shoulder. "But without your clinical practice-" He interrupted. He said, "I wouldn't be anything." (Page 237)
Response: I found it interesting that Farmer knew that he wouldn't have been in his current position if not for his medical expertise. I coudn't help but think that even though Farmer was devoted and hard working, at the same time he thought of himself highly-which wasn't true at all.
"It occured to me that PIH would probably always be in some kind of jeopardy, because it was constitutionally impossible for Farmer and Kim to sit on resources-to wait for lower drug prices while MDR killed Russian prisoners, to save for an endowment for Zanmi Lasante while Hatian peasants died of AIDS. Their approach, especially toward money, was completely impractical, it seemed to me, and yet it appeared to be working." (Page 253)
Response: Nobody likes the idea of people dying in third world countries because they lack standard care and medicine, but there's always the barrier of money. It's surprising how Farmer and PIH members take the money risk, and shows that they care more about the people who are ill and dying instead of themselves.
"It's embarressing that piddly little projects like ours should serve as exemplars," Farmer told me. "It's only because other people haven't been doing their jobs." (Page 257)
Response: I agree, and its sad that there is such a lack of support and aid. I understand that its not an easy task, but it still makes me question whether people in general can actually have the devotion to support others.
"Hiking into the hills to see just one patient or two is a dumb way for Farmer to spend his time, and even if it weren't, not many other people will follow his example, not enough to make much difference in the world." (Page 294)
Response: I understand where this opinion comes from, but I think it DOES make a difference. Even if its only one person that starts doing something thats obviously 'good' than its going to attract attention.
"And I can imagine Farmer saying he doesn't care if no one else is willing to follow their example. He's still going to make these hikes, he'd insist, because if you say that seven hours is too long to walk for two families of patients, you're saying that their lives matter less than some others', and the idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world." (Page 294)
Response: This was the most moving quote I found personally, because it makes a lot of sense. Somehow, people tend to create ranks in their minds of who is more important than others and there's something wrong with that idea. And, I think Farmer should be a figure more people should look up to because he teaches lessons other than the obvious that those in poor needs equal care.
I thought this book taught me a valuable lesson about the lives of others, and the fact that not many people can take risks that can help others on a grand scale. Especially towards the end, I found it very insightful that Farmer only does what he does because he wants to and doesn't expect others to follow in his footsteps. I don't think its possible to have people do what Farmer does, but I think its possible for people to get something out of Farmer's views and opinions. I think the problem with today's society is the lack of devotion for others, because we always put ourselves before others. It's hard to risk our own money, status, or anything else even if its for the better good for others.
Title: Mountains Beyond Mountains
Author: Tracy Kidder
Publisher: The Random House Publishing Group
Year Published: 2003
Precis:
Tracy Kidder (the author) takes on a journey with Dr. Paul Farmer. Unlike most doctors, Farmer is devoted in actually curing his patients and pursues his goal to send medicine and care to countries that need it most (i.e Haiti) He walks miles and miles to check in on his Haitian patients, take long plane rides to and from Haiti, and speaks about the situation in these poor countries in books and in conferences. He is a doctor who represents the people of Haiti who are unable to speak for themselves because of their poverty and illness, and is willing to spend his whole life doing so. He should be a role model for other doctors.
Quotes/Responses:
"You're a great guy." I said, putting a hand on his shoulder. "But without your clinical practice-" He interrupted. He said, "I wouldn't be anything." (Page 237)
Response: I found it interesting that Farmer knew that he wouldn't have been in his current position if not for his medical expertise. I coudn't help but think that even though Farmer was devoted and hard working, at the same time he thought of himself highly-which wasn't true at all.
"It occured to me that PIH would probably always be in some kind of jeopardy, because it was constitutionally impossible for Farmer and Kim to sit on resources-to wait for lower drug prices while MDR killed Russian prisoners, to save for an endowment for Zanmi Lasante while Hatian peasants died of AIDS. Their approach, especially toward money, was completely impractical, it seemed to me, and yet it appeared to be working." (Page 253)
Response: Nobody likes the idea of people dying in third world countries because they lack standard care and medicine, but there's always the barrier of money. It's surprising how Farmer and PIH members take the money risk, and shows that they care more about the people who are ill and dying instead of themselves.
"It's embarressing that piddly little projects like ours should serve as exemplars," Farmer told me. "It's only because other people haven't been doing their jobs." (Page 257)
Response: I agree, and its sad that there is such a lack of support and aid. I understand that its not an easy task, but it still makes me question whether people in general can actually have the devotion to support others.
"Hiking into the hills to see just one patient or two is a dumb way for Farmer to spend his time, and even if it weren't, not many other people will follow his example, not enough to make much difference in the world." (Page 294)
Response: I understand where this opinion comes from, but I think it DOES make a difference. Even if its only one person that starts doing something thats obviously 'good' than its going to attract attention.
"And I can imagine Farmer saying he doesn't care if no one else is willing to follow their example. He's still going to make these hikes, he'd insist, because if you say that seven hours is too long to walk for two families of patients, you're saying that their lives matter less than some others', and the idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world." (Page 294)
Response: This was the most moving quote I found personally, because it makes a lot of sense. Somehow, people tend to create ranks in their minds of who is more important than others and there's something wrong with that idea. And, I think Farmer should be a figure more people should look up to because he teaches lessons other than the obvious that those in poor needs equal care.
I thought this book taught me a valuable lesson about the lives of others, and the fact that not many people can take risks that can help others on a grand scale. Especially towards the end, I found it very insightful that Farmer only does what he does because he wants to and doesn't expect others to follow in his footsteps. I don't think its possible to have people do what Farmer does, but I think its possible for people to get something out of Farmer's views and opinions. I think the problem with today's society is the lack of devotion for others, because we always put ourselves before others. It's hard to risk our own money, status, or anything else even if its for the better good for others.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
HW#23: Illness and Dying Book Part 2
Bibliographic Info:
Title: Mountains Beyond Mountains
Author: Tracy Kidder
Publisher: The Random House Publishing Group
Year Published: 2003
Precis:
Dr. Paul Farmer always puts patients before himself and the healthy, unless he gets severly injured/sick and forces himself to just rest. He represents the Haitians and spoke out about the flaws within a DOT program that actually can worsen patients' health conditions. Dr. Farmer is never into the money or business, he simply just wants and hopes that the sick and poor of third world countries can have better care.
Quotes/Responses:
"Farmer and Kim and Bayona would soon meet people whose families had sold most of their meager possessions and had bought as much of those drugs as they could. Not enough to get cured, however, only enough to aquire still further resistance. Others had given up and gone back to their shacks on the barren, dusty hillsides and were waiting there to die." (Page 140)
Response: This is dissapointing because I thought WHO created systems and benefits that would support the health of many sick people; but in this case its causing a bigger problem. The sad thing is though that nobody questioned the DOT program until Farmer noticed the issue and made a speech on it. I understand that any trusted program would not want their reputation or status to be affected in a negative way, but it makes me shake my head that only people like Farmer can speak about it.
"They didn't have a guaranteed supply of drugs, only the determination to obtain the drugs and the charm to get away from borrowing.....They lacked proper institutional support. The weight of opinion stood against them. Their organization was small and it had other projects, in Haiti and Boston and elsewhere, and Peru put a strain on everyone." (Page 150)
Response: This caught my attention because Farmer dosn't care about the pressures placed on him, and the amounts of borrowed money he most likely will never return. He only thinks for the people who he 'needs' to cure and is like a heroic figure other doctors should follow.
"The problem is, if I don't work this hard, someone will die who dosn't have to. That sounds megalomaniacal. I wouldn't have said that to you before I'd taken you to Haiti and you had seen that it was manifestly true." (Page 191)
Response: I sensed strong responsibility and devotion Dr. Farmer felt about himself on a personal level. He wants to spend his whole life saving lives and curing illnesses, and I thought that was very moving.
"Some people would say things will get so bad that Haitians will revolt. But you can't revolt when you're coughing out your lungs or starving. Someone's going to have to revolt on the Haitian's behalf, including people from the wealthy class." (Page 209)
Response: I agree with the statement, even though I also realize that is easier said than done. Most people in Haiti are sick and dying and the only way their voice is heard is through those that are devoted such as Farmer. It makes sense that the people there are close to the doctor, because he truly is a doctor who cares about his patients.
I was upset that even WHO had flaws, but it wasn't that surprising. Anything that has some sort of government support is bound to have flaws or problems. What really moved me through the book was Dr. Farmer's devotion and love toward his patients. He always got around getting money and always had patients in the back of his mind. Usually, doctors don't stand so personal with their patients, but with Dr. Farmer it is different. To me, he is like a role model for how doctors should put more effort in curing the ill moreso than about money.
Title: Mountains Beyond Mountains
Author: Tracy Kidder
Publisher: The Random House Publishing Group
Year Published: 2003
Precis:
Dr. Paul Farmer always puts patients before himself and the healthy, unless he gets severly injured/sick and forces himself to just rest. He represents the Haitians and spoke out about the flaws within a DOT program that actually can worsen patients' health conditions. Dr. Farmer is never into the money or business, he simply just wants and hopes that the sick and poor of third world countries can have better care.
Quotes/Responses:
"Farmer and Kim and Bayona would soon meet people whose families had sold most of their meager possessions and had bought as much of those drugs as they could. Not enough to get cured, however, only enough to aquire still further resistance. Others had given up and gone back to their shacks on the barren, dusty hillsides and were waiting there to die." (Page 140)
Response: This is dissapointing because I thought WHO created systems and benefits that would support the health of many sick people; but in this case its causing a bigger problem. The sad thing is though that nobody questioned the DOT program until Farmer noticed the issue and made a speech on it. I understand that any trusted program would not want their reputation or status to be affected in a negative way, but it makes me shake my head that only people like Farmer can speak about it.
"They didn't have a guaranteed supply of drugs, only the determination to obtain the drugs and the charm to get away from borrowing.....They lacked proper institutional support. The weight of opinion stood against them. Their organization was small and it had other projects, in Haiti and Boston and elsewhere, and Peru put a strain on everyone." (Page 150)
Response: This caught my attention because Farmer dosn't care about the pressures placed on him, and the amounts of borrowed money he most likely will never return. He only thinks for the people who he 'needs' to cure and is like a heroic figure other doctors should follow.
"The problem is, if I don't work this hard, someone will die who dosn't have to. That sounds megalomaniacal. I wouldn't have said that to you before I'd taken you to Haiti and you had seen that it was manifestly true." (Page 191)
Response: I sensed strong responsibility and devotion Dr. Farmer felt about himself on a personal level. He wants to spend his whole life saving lives and curing illnesses, and I thought that was very moving.
"Some people would say things will get so bad that Haitians will revolt. But you can't revolt when you're coughing out your lungs or starving. Someone's going to have to revolt on the Haitian's behalf, including people from the wealthy class." (Page 209)
Response: I agree with the statement, even though I also realize that is easier said than done. Most people in Haiti are sick and dying and the only way their voice is heard is through those that are devoted such as Farmer. It makes sense that the people there are close to the doctor, because he truly is a doctor who cares about his patients.
I was upset that even WHO had flaws, but it wasn't that surprising. Anything that has some sort of government support is bound to have flaws or problems. What really moved me through the book was Dr. Farmer's devotion and love toward his patients. He always got around getting money and always had patients in the back of his mind. Usually, doctors don't stand so personal with their patients, but with Dr. Farmer it is different. To me, he is like a role model for how doctors should put more effort in curing the ill moreso than about money.
Friday, December 10, 2010
HW#22: Illness & Dying Book Part 1
Bibliographic Info:
Title: Mountains Beyond Mountains
Author: Tracy Kidder
Publisher: The Random House Publishing Group
Year Published: 2003
Precis:
Paul Farmer was raised in a family that was not really rich, but he was always an intelligent student who made his father proud. He went to collge with a full scholarship and studied many subjects. However, his experience and observations in Haiti made him decide to become a doctor who really tries to make the poorest starving people healthier. He belives strongly that free medical care and support be provided to the needy, and that if nobody was going to do it; he will.
Quotes/Responses:
"Giving people medicine for TB and not giving them food is like washing your hands and drying them in the dirt." (Page 34)
Response: Even though this quote made sense, it still struck me as I read the book. Just simply curing a disease does not automatically make the patient in their best health. The people in Haiti easily get ill because of their living conditions and poverty. A third world country will never be able to escape their hopeless conditions by simply giving out medications. I think that's one of the many things Dr. Farmer observed, and that is why he goes out of his way to talk and speak with different patients. There is no simple solution but clearly there is a lack of effort which is upsetting and dissapointing.
"But, as they themselves often remarked, they didn't even get electricity or water for their land. Most didn't get money either. In fact, the dam was meant to benefit agribusiness downstream, mostly American-owned back then, and also to supply electricity to Port-au-Prince, especially homes of the numerically tiny, wealthy Hatian elite and to foreign-owned assembly plants." (Page 37-38)
Response: This passage furthered my questioning of, "Are people trying enough to help areas of extreme poverty?" Where is all the donations going to? If the majority of the people of Haiti are starving and dying, why is there a dam being created to benefit the few elites? That makes no sense to me, and makes me feel as though people in general are so selfish. There is a lack of selfless individuals such as Paul Farmer.
"It would make sense to provide medicine in the places that needed it most, and there was no place needier than Haiti, at least in the Western Hemisphere, and he hadn't seen any plance in Haiti needier than Cange..He'd find out that the hospital
would charge patients for its use." (Page 81)
Response: This furthered my dissapointment because obviously the conditions of Haitian lives are devastating because they don't have money. Why are hospitals being built if the people there can't even afford the money for treatment? It's pointless!
So far, this book has been upsetting me. I thought I knew that there are countries far worse than the U.S (ofcourse) but I can't help but get the impression that people simply don't want to help the needy. Many of the donations do not seem to go to the needy and simply the few rich. I also got the impression that (besides Dr. Farmer) the doctors that are there are simply hopeless. I feel as though people in general can feel pitiful towards the suffering, but don't make enough of an effort to change their lives. There aren't many people like Farmer, who feel deeply moved and actually go take action. On the other hand, the needy people deal illness and dying as hopelessness unless help comes.
Title: Mountains Beyond Mountains
Author: Tracy Kidder
Publisher: The Random House Publishing Group
Year Published: 2003
Precis:
Paul Farmer was raised in a family that was not really rich, but he was always an intelligent student who made his father proud. He went to collge with a full scholarship and studied many subjects. However, his experience and observations in Haiti made him decide to become a doctor who really tries to make the poorest starving people healthier. He belives strongly that free medical care and support be provided to the needy, and that if nobody was going to do it; he will.
Quotes/Responses:
"Giving people medicine for TB and not giving them food is like washing your hands and drying them in the dirt." (Page 34)
Response: Even though this quote made sense, it still struck me as I read the book. Just simply curing a disease does not automatically make the patient in their best health. The people in Haiti easily get ill because of their living conditions and poverty. A third world country will never be able to escape their hopeless conditions by simply giving out medications. I think that's one of the many things Dr. Farmer observed, and that is why he goes out of his way to talk and speak with different patients. There is no simple solution but clearly there is a lack of effort which is upsetting and dissapointing.
"But, as they themselves often remarked, they didn't even get electricity or water for their land. Most didn't get money either. In fact, the dam was meant to benefit agribusiness downstream, mostly American-owned back then, and also to supply electricity to Port-au-Prince, especially homes of the numerically tiny, wealthy Hatian elite and to foreign-owned assembly plants." (Page 37-38)
Response: This passage furthered my questioning of, "Are people trying enough to help areas of extreme poverty?" Where is all the donations going to? If the majority of the people of Haiti are starving and dying, why is there a dam being created to benefit the few elites? That makes no sense to me, and makes me feel as though people in general are so selfish. There is a lack of selfless individuals such as Paul Farmer.
"It would make sense to provide medicine in the places that needed it most, and there was no place needier than Haiti, at least in the Western Hemisphere, and he hadn't seen any plance in Haiti needier than Cange..He'd find out that the hospital
would charge patients for its use." (Page 81)
Response: This furthered my dissapointment because obviously the conditions of Haitian lives are devastating because they don't have money. Why are hospitals being built if the people there can't even afford the money for treatment? It's pointless!
So far, this book has been upsetting me. I thought I knew that there are countries far worse than the U.S (ofcourse) but I can't help but get the impression that people simply don't want to help the needy. Many of the donations do not seem to go to the needy and simply the few rich. I also got the impression that (besides Dr. Farmer) the doctors that are there are simply hopeless. I feel as though people in general can feel pitiful towards the suffering, but don't make enough of an effort to change their lives. There aren't many people like Farmer, who feel deeply moved and actually go take action. On the other hand, the needy people deal illness and dying as hopelessness unless help comes.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
HW #21 Comments I made
To Sarah:
Firstly, thank you for giving me credit. That was very sweet of you. :)
Your post was very clear and organized. I found at least one insightful comment in each paragraph and found your thoughts very deep and made good connections. A line in particular that I liked was, "It does seem sort of strange though how we often become obsessed with the disease within the person, we pull every string to slow down time, to cure them." I strongly agree with that second paragraph and that statement because it's just what people do naturally when their loved ones get ill. We become persistant in making the person live longer, and end up forgetting at times about who they are as an individual.
To Stephanie:
thought your post was very organized and easy to follow; I enjoyed reading it. As Jay mentioned in the above comment, you provided very insightful questions that I did not even think about. One part of the post that caught my attention was, "I found this to be powerful because the "normal" thing is for the guy to work and the women usually stays home and raises the kids, but to hear that the roles were switched gave me some hope that "normal", might not be so normal after all." I liked how this connects back to the overall unit 'normal is weird,' and I found it insightful that you felt a sense of hope that what our society considers to be 'normal' isn't really that normal. I also agree with the statement though, and I think that some of the assumptions of what is taken as 'normal' isn't always right. In a way, Beth proved that it can be normal for the gender roles to switch in families.
To Jay:
Overall, I enojoyed reading your post. One of the insights that caught my attention was, "At some point they need to maintain a distance and fully remove themselves emotionally. Is it better for a doctor to be cold and calculating or emotionally connected?" I thought you raised a question that was not only insightful, but a question people don't like to think about. Personally, I don't have a clear answer to that question. I think a doctor needs to maintain a balance between distance and connection with a patient, but that's easier to say than done.
Firstly, thank you for giving me credit. That was very sweet of you. :)
Your post was very clear and organized. I found at least one insightful comment in each paragraph and found your thoughts very deep and made good connections. A line in particular that I liked was, "It does seem sort of strange though how we often become obsessed with the disease within the person, we pull every string to slow down time, to cure them." I strongly agree with that second paragraph and that statement because it's just what people do naturally when their loved ones get ill. We become persistant in making the person live longer, and end up forgetting at times about who they are as an individual.
To Stephanie:
thought your post was very organized and easy to follow; I enjoyed reading it. As Jay mentioned in the above comment, you provided very insightful questions that I did not even think about. One part of the post that caught my attention was, "I found this to be powerful because the "normal" thing is for the guy to work and the women usually stays home and raises the kids, but to hear that the roles were switched gave me some hope that "normal", might not be so normal after all." I liked how this connects back to the overall unit 'normal is weird,' and I found it insightful that you felt a sense of hope that what our society considers to be 'normal' isn't really that normal. I also agree with the statement though, and I think that some of the assumptions of what is taken as 'normal' isn't always right. In a way, Beth proved that it can be normal for the gender roles to switch in families.
To Jay:
Overall, I enojoyed reading your post. One of the insights that caught my attention was, "At some point they need to maintain a distance and fully remove themselves emotionally. Is it better for a doctor to be cold and calculating or emotionally connected?" I thought you raised a question that was not only insightful, but a question people don't like to think about. Personally, I don't have a clear answer to that question. I think a doctor needs to maintain a balance between distance and connection with a patient, but that's easier to say than done.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
HW#21: Expert #1
Most Important Insights/Experience from Guest Speaker:
1. Her husband (like most men) was not seeking medical treatment when he first started to feel sick even though he should have.
2. Unlike movies and the media, going through cancer and chemo isn't 'pretty.' Her husband's foot blew up and was unable to walk. He didn't look as handsome as before.
3. Dealing with an illness such as her husband was not a straight line. In a way, it gave false hopes since there were times where he seemed okay.
4. Even as her husband's death neared, they never mentioned the word 'death' and always had positive thinking.
5. Her husband still made the art he loved while he was in the hospital. He said he did not mind being paralyzed as long as his hand could move. Even as he was in the stage of dying, he passed out cards with his art at different patients.
6. Beth has a supportive family which helped her to solely focus on taking care of her husband instead of continuing workshops. In a way, these moments were her best moments because she was able to only think about him and spend more 'quality time.'
7. She did not want others in the hospital to only see her husband as a 'cancer.' She wanted the doctors to look at him as a human, as a talented artist, and as her husband.
8. Her husband constantly fought against death.
9. Never hold off on saying a compliment or a comment that may make that person's day. You never know what can happen to that person.
The first insight I listed was actually one I agreed with strongly. Even though it depends on the individual, there are men who are in complete denial of being severly sick when they really need to go see a doctor. My grandpa on my mother's side can be like that sometimes. This is worrisome, because I can never tell if he is sick or not, and continues to take care of my disabled grandmother. I can tell he is very healthy and fit for his age, but at the same time I know there will be a time when he won't be able to do a lot of things as he gets more and more older. When I actually stopped to think about it, all the males in my family seem like they are never sick because they never openly say so. On the other hand (including myself) the females in my family say openly they are sick and feel bad. This is a generalization, but I agree in a way that men tend to not be so open about health.
The third insight I got from the guest speaker was that the process of being with someone who is ill and nearly dying is never a straight line and gives false hopes. I think this is true, especially because people naturally just tend to hope or want to believe that something good will happen. It's hard to do the opposite, because who would want their loved one to pass away? I always hope that my grandparents and family in Japan will continue to live on and I would be able to see them every time I go visit. I know that death happens to everyone, but I personally don't like to ponder about it: I just hope that it won't come any time soon.
I at first felt uncomfortable being in an audience listening to a true account of someone who lost their husband through kidney cancer. I honestly thought she would grow emotional, but instead I saw the exact opposite. Death is never a happy experience, but through her way of talking about it, I got the sense that it changed her view in a positive direction. I felt as though she accepted death open-heartedly and learned the value of time over money. Can death make a person stronger? I always took death as a depressing, tragic event but from her I felt as though death does not have to be 100% negative. It also sparked another question of, "Is it possible to be happy as death comes near?" I sensed strength even within her husband, who continued doing the art he loved despite his illness and nearing death. Maybe death doesn't have to be a moment of despair, but rather a chance to continue doing what we love until that time comes.
1. Her husband (like most men) was not seeking medical treatment when he first started to feel sick even though he should have.
2. Unlike movies and the media, going through cancer and chemo isn't 'pretty.' Her husband's foot blew up and was unable to walk. He didn't look as handsome as before.
3. Dealing with an illness such as her husband was not a straight line. In a way, it gave false hopes since there were times where he seemed okay.
4. Even as her husband's death neared, they never mentioned the word 'death' and always had positive thinking.
5. Her husband still made the art he loved while he was in the hospital. He said he did not mind being paralyzed as long as his hand could move. Even as he was in the stage of dying, he passed out cards with his art at different patients.
6. Beth has a supportive family which helped her to solely focus on taking care of her husband instead of continuing workshops. In a way, these moments were her best moments because she was able to only think about him and spend more 'quality time.'
7. She did not want others in the hospital to only see her husband as a 'cancer.' She wanted the doctors to look at him as a human, as a talented artist, and as her husband.
8. Her husband constantly fought against death.
9. Never hold off on saying a compliment or a comment that may make that person's day. You never know what can happen to that person.
The first insight I listed was actually one I agreed with strongly. Even though it depends on the individual, there are men who are in complete denial of being severly sick when they really need to go see a doctor. My grandpa on my mother's side can be like that sometimes. This is worrisome, because I can never tell if he is sick or not, and continues to take care of my disabled grandmother. I can tell he is very healthy and fit for his age, but at the same time I know there will be a time when he won't be able to do a lot of things as he gets more and more older. When I actually stopped to think about it, all the males in my family seem like they are never sick because they never openly say so. On the other hand (including myself) the females in my family say openly they are sick and feel bad. This is a generalization, but I agree in a way that men tend to not be so open about health.
The third insight I got from the guest speaker was that the process of being with someone who is ill and nearly dying is never a straight line and gives false hopes. I think this is true, especially because people naturally just tend to hope or want to believe that something good will happen. It's hard to do the opposite, because who would want their loved one to pass away? I always hope that my grandparents and family in Japan will continue to live on and I would be able to see them every time I go visit. I know that death happens to everyone, but I personally don't like to ponder about it: I just hope that it won't come any time soon.
I at first felt uncomfortable being in an audience listening to a true account of someone who lost their husband through kidney cancer. I honestly thought she would grow emotional, but instead I saw the exact opposite. Death is never a happy experience, but through her way of talking about it, I got the sense that it changed her view in a positive direction. I felt as though she accepted death open-heartedly and learned the value of time over money. Can death make a person stronger? I always took death as a depressing, tragic event but from her I felt as though death does not have to be 100% negative. It also sparked another question of, "Is it possible to be happy as death comes near?" I sensed strength even within her husband, who continued doing the art he loved despite his illness and nearing death. Maybe death doesn't have to be a moment of despair, but rather a chance to continue doing what we love until that time comes.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
HW#19: Family Perspectives on Illness and Dying
Honestly, this unit makes me feel a bit uncomfortable because it's a topic that I think isn't needed to be spoken aloud about. Even if my mom brings up about certain aspects of it, I end up looking away because its a topic that is completely out of my comfort level. When it comes to illness and dying, I see my mother as a stronger figure than I am because she is able to voice her opinion while I tend to turn my back to it.
But, when it comes to how my mother perceives death and illness, it is similar to my views as well. There's only one life to live, and while this is a cliche I take it very seriously at times. While it is true that I use many of my time on electronic use, I don't see it as a negative thing necessarily. I use my phone and go on facebook because I like to keep connected with friends even if they're not with me in person all the time. Even besides electronic use, I take my time helping out with family chores and taking several extra-curricular activities.
For my mom, illness and dying is just something that happens in life. No matter what, death comes to every individual and that is something we all have to accept as we go on in life. As death comes nearer, we become more conscious about our existence and try harder to make our lives more worthwhile. My mother belives that while holistic medicine can make a person more healthier and recommends me to use it for prevention methods, but it isn't effective when a person becomes truly ill. Holistic methods only work only up to the point until the individual becomes really sick. While Allopathis medicine does not always work, my mo turns to that dominant method because it can cure. Even through a friend's friend who turned down surgery because she didn't believe in it, ended up unneccessarily sick. We have to turn to allopathic medicine in times of illness and that is how she (and I) think its the best way to face illness.
My grandma also is more on the allopathic side as well. She is sent to hospitals and goes see doctors because she does think that doctors and hospitals help her. She was a dancer when she was young, so she was originally in good shape which I think is still holistic. My grandpa on the other side is strongly holistic. Even though lately he's body isn't as strong as he wants it to be, every summer I went to Japan I took long tiring walks with him every night. Even in the mornings, I would see him walk out the house before 6AM to take walks. I think because of his strong holistic views, he looks a lot younger than his true age and is able to care for my grandma.
From my understanding of dominant culture perspectives, there were mostly overlaps of ideas from my mother's viewpoint and the culture's viewpoint. The dominant perspective is the allopathic medicine as the solution for illness and dealing with dying. My mother, as already mentioned, agrees with the dominant viewpoint and is only slightly agreeing with the minor holistic methods.
But, when it comes to how my mother perceives death and illness, it is similar to my views as well. There's only one life to live, and while this is a cliche I take it very seriously at times. While it is true that I use many of my time on electronic use, I don't see it as a negative thing necessarily. I use my phone and go on facebook because I like to keep connected with friends even if they're not with me in person all the time. Even besides electronic use, I take my time helping out with family chores and taking several extra-curricular activities.
For my mom, illness and dying is just something that happens in life. No matter what, death comes to every individual and that is something we all have to accept as we go on in life. As death comes nearer, we become more conscious about our existence and try harder to make our lives more worthwhile. My mother belives that while holistic medicine can make a person more healthier and recommends me to use it for prevention methods, but it isn't effective when a person becomes truly ill. Holistic methods only work only up to the point until the individual becomes really sick. While Allopathis medicine does not always work, my mo turns to that dominant method because it can cure. Even through a friend's friend who turned down surgery because she didn't believe in it, ended up unneccessarily sick. We have to turn to allopathic medicine in times of illness and that is how she (and I) think its the best way to face illness.
My grandma also is more on the allopathic side as well. She is sent to hospitals and goes see doctors because she does think that doctors and hospitals help her. She was a dancer when she was young, so she was originally in good shape which I think is still holistic. My grandpa on the other side is strongly holistic. Even though lately he's body isn't as strong as he wants it to be, every summer I went to Japan I took long tiring walks with him every night. Even in the mornings, I would see him walk out the house before 6AM to take walks. I think because of his strong holistic views, he looks a lot younger than his true age and is able to care for my grandma.
From my understanding of dominant culture perspectives, there were mostly overlaps of ideas from my mother's viewpoint and the culture's viewpoint. The dominant perspective is the allopathic medicine as the solution for illness and dealing with dying. My mother, as already mentioned, agrees with the dominant viewpoint and is only slightly agreeing with the minor holistic methods.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
HW#18: Health and Illness Feasting
For Thanksgiving, usually my mother and I would go to a friend's dinner party to celebrate it. But, because I wasn't feeling too well I decided not to go this time. I instead went to a dinner party on friday my manager from work invited me to. In this dinner party, (like any Thanksgiving feast), the factor of food-pleasure supplement was the main focus of the event. Everyone simply just wanted to eat as much as they can and enjoy their time. This is one main aspect of being 'anti-body' because I doubt anybody (inclusing myself) were too self-conscious about how much we were eating.
There were also other aspects of 'anti-body' when thinking (though I sat with non-drinkers) many of my older co-workers were drinking a lot. I doubt they thought about the after affect of what would happen the next day because it was simply a day to relax and have a good time. This dinner party was also partially anti-body because we were eating at a restaurant and sat on hard chairs.(Even though this didn't bother me at all). We also didn't move around that much, so that aspect was also 'anti-body.' I didn't even think about the chairs or about my body during that time, because the focus was just on eating the food that was being passed around the table and to have a great time with everyone.
It was already 11PM when we decided to leave the restaurant. Ofcourse, I went home but some members were willing to still drink elsewhere. I thought this after-drinking factor was huge when thinking about the illness and dying unit. I don't think over-drinking or over-eating to celebrate a holiday or on one day would necessarily cause illness or dying, but I thought it was something to think about. I guess celebrations/holidays like Thanksgiving goes hand in hand with negative affects to the body and our health, but I still don't think its that much of a big deal.
There were also other aspects of 'anti-body' when thinking (though I sat with non-drinkers) many of my older co-workers were drinking a lot. I doubt they thought about the after affect of what would happen the next day because it was simply a day to relax and have a good time. This dinner party was also partially anti-body because we were eating at a restaurant and sat on hard chairs.(Even though this didn't bother me at all). We also didn't move around that much, so that aspect was also 'anti-body.' I didn't even think about the chairs or about my body during that time, because the focus was just on eating the food that was being passed around the table and to have a great time with everyone.
It was already 11PM when we decided to leave the restaurant. Ofcourse, I went home but some members were willing to still drink elsewhere. I thought this after-drinking factor was huge when thinking about the illness and dying unit. I don't think over-drinking or over-eating to celebrate a holiday or on one day would necessarily cause illness or dying, but I thought it was something to think about. I guess celebrations/holidays like Thanksgiving goes hand in hand with negative affects to the body and our health, but I still don't think its that much of a big deal.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
HW#17: First Thoughts on Illness and Dying Unit
Illness and dying is always a sensitive topic to me (and most likey for others as well), and is always a topic of discussion that I like to avoid. I see nothing positive in it, and all the emotions involved with these two words is pain and sorrow. I had to deal with the death of my grandfather on my father's side and currently I am worried about the condition of my grandma on my mother's side, and the depression my aunt deals with. It is especially worrisome when most of my family is in Japan, and keeping in touch is not really easy. I think this unit might trigger some of the fears I have surrounding these topics, because I really do not like the idea of loosing people who really mean a lot to me.
I really love my grandparents on my mother's side. My grandma would whine about not wanting to go to the hospital and complain about food. She even ran away and came back home during a period of hospitalization. Someimes I really question if she really values her life. My grandma has a walking stick and a disabled arm. My grandpa would always help put her clothes on and help take her medications. It's surprising how much she acts strong when she is really ill. It's also worrisome. When I heard about the illness and dying unit, I thought about my grandma. My mother had told me that she always told her how scared she is of dying. She basically can't do anything on her own, and I know the doctors would not be very surprised if she died anytime soon. I don't like that idea.
I do not like the idea of being ill and having the idea of dying in the back of people's minds. Is there really nothing I can do for my grandma? Is there nothing people can do to help those who are really ill? What is the point in living a life of consistent pain and the fear of death right by you? I want my grandma to live a really long life, but at the same time I feel as though if I was in the same position as her I would feel really differently. There's only one life: and I want to be able to live it to the fullest. I would not want to live a life of hospitals, medicines, and the sadness of unable to do anything on my own. I want to be a healthy person throughout my life and be able to do a lot of things.
I really love my grandparents on my mother's side. My grandma would whine about not wanting to go to the hospital and complain about food. She even ran away and came back home during a period of hospitalization. Someimes I really question if she really values her life. My grandma has a walking stick and a disabled arm. My grandpa would always help put her clothes on and help take her medications. It's surprising how much she acts strong when she is really ill. It's also worrisome. When I heard about the illness and dying unit, I thought about my grandma. My mother had told me that she always told her how scared she is of dying. She basically can't do anything on her own, and I know the doctors would not be very surprised if she died anytime soon. I don't like that idea.
I do not like the idea of being ill and having the idea of dying in the back of people's minds. Is there really nothing I can do for my grandma? Is there nothing people can do to help those who are really ill? What is the point in living a life of consistent pain and the fear of death right by you? I want my grandma to live a really long life, but at the same time I feel as though if I was in the same position as her I would feel really differently. There's only one life: and I want to be able to live it to the fullest. I would not want to live a life of hospitals, medicines, and the sadness of unable to do anything on my own. I want to be a healthy person throughout my life and be able to do a lot of things.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
HW#11: Final Food Project I
From the whole food unit, I learned that our industrial food system is a much more complicated and nightmarish system than we imagine or wish it to be. Is there a way to escape this nightmare? It was a bit worrisome that there might be even more life-threatening dangers within the food we eat that the government and huge food corporations hide just for their greed for profit. Joel Salatin’s Polyface farm is then mentioned as a ‘sustainable’ and ‘natural’ local farm that would make any reader of Omnivore’s Dilemma and any viewer of Food Inc. want to look up to in amazement. But, I had to ask myself: Is Polyface farm really that great? I decided than to do an Academic Research to see if Pollen and Salatin’s statements hold true.
I wasn't quite sure how to start, so I began by doing simple searches of Polyface Farm. It was a relief to see that many of the people who actually visited the farm were surprised at how much of the things mentioned about the farm was not very exaggerated. However, I knew I needed other people's opinions and came across a blog that caught my attention. Of course, it's not a credible sourse, but it was a start: (http://postconflicted.blogspot.com/2009/05/recent-trip-to-polyface-farms.html) There was a comment that I wanted to confirm:
"The short of it is that pastoral cows are in fact still a major source of greenhouse gases, and they do not solve environmental issues."
Here is some research I found:
"World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition, clearing of tropical forests and rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year!” (Are cows the cause of global warming? (http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2)
I’m still on Salatin’s side, but it makes sense that even Polyface farm’s way of doing things isn’t ‘perfect.’ The farm takes up a lot of space so animals are free to roam which may cause more CO2...
This obviously wasn’t convincing though; I read in Omnivore’s Dilemma of Salatin’s method of avoiding his farm animals from eating the same leaf repeatedly to avoid the problems of overgrazing. Polyface farm might be emitting some type of CO2, but obviously its a lot less compared to the CO2 emiited from feedlots and industrial farms.
But, most of the research that came up were positive views of Polyface farm. I tried not to check anything the government or 'specialists' would say, rather people who actually visited the farm and their reactions to it. This is connected to what we've been learning in the food unit has helped me confirm that Polyface farm is indeed an example that other industrial farms and corporations fail to consider. This is important because most people (at least in the U.S) are involved and manipulated into this complex food system, and its important to re-consider if we should still fall under the hands of the government. Polyface farm's method is completely different, so it may not be a complete solution, but it is definitly something to think about.
I wasn't quite sure how to start, so I began by doing simple searches of Polyface Farm. It was a relief to see that many of the people who actually visited the farm were surprised at how much of the things mentioned about the farm was not very exaggerated. However, I knew I needed other people's opinions and came across a blog that caught my attention. Of course, it's not a credible sourse, but it was a start: (http://postconflicted.blogspot.com/2009/05/recent-trip-to-polyface-farms.html) There was a comment that I wanted to confirm:
"The short of it is that pastoral cows are in fact still a major source of greenhouse gases, and they do not solve environmental issues."
Here is some research I found:
"World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition, clearing of tropical forests and rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year!” (Are cows the cause of global warming? (http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2)
I’m still on Salatin’s side, but it makes sense that even Polyface farm’s way of doing things isn’t ‘perfect.’ The farm takes up a lot of space so animals are free to roam which may cause more CO2...
This obviously wasn’t convincing though; I read in Omnivore’s Dilemma of Salatin’s method of avoiding his farm animals from eating the same leaf repeatedly to avoid the problems of overgrazing. Polyface farm might be emitting some type of CO2, but obviously its a lot less compared to the CO2 emiited from feedlots and industrial farms.
But, most of the research that came up were positive views of Polyface farm. I tried not to check anything the government or 'specialists' would say, rather people who actually visited the farm and their reactions to it. This is connected to what we've been learning in the food unit has helped me confirm that Polyface farm is indeed an example that other industrial farms and corporations fail to consider. This is important because most people (at least in the U.S) are involved and manipulated into this complex food system, and its important to re-consider if we should still fall under the hands of the government. Polyface farm's method is completely different, so it may not be a complete solution, but it is definitly something to think about.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
HW#12: Final Food Project 2-Outline
Thesis:
Many of the dominant social practices in our society-practices that define a "normal" life-on further investigation turn out to involve nightmarish and industrial atrocities.
Major Claim:
The food industry has negatively influenced our dominant social practices regarding food that we assumed to be 'normal.'
Supporting Claim #1:
The food industry abuses and takes advantage of the overproduction of corn.
Evidence: Farmers forced to produce more corn to make a living.
"A farm family needs a certain amount of cash flow every year to support itself, and if the price of corn falls, the only way to stay even is to sell more corn." -Omnivore's Dilemma page 53-54
Evidence:Our food is not as diverse as we believe
"The great edifice of variety and choice that is an American supermarket turns out to rest on a remarkably narrow biological foundation comprised of a tiny group of plants..."-Page 18 of Omnivore's Dilemma
Evidence: Feeding corn to animals that should be eating grass.
"Switching a cow from grass to grain is so disturbing to the animal’s digestive system that it can kill the animal if not done gradually and if the animal is not continually fed antibiotics. These animals are designed to forage, but we make them eat grain, primarily corn, in order to make them as fat as possible as fast as possible." -What About Grass-fed Beef?
http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/grass-fed-beef/
Evidence: Giving different names to corn to confuse the consumers what's in our food
The following is a list:
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pdf/foodinc/foodinc_corn_derived_handout.pdf
Supporting Claim #2:
The food industry values massive production over the health of the people and animals when paying closer attention to the treatment of our meat.
Evidence:Feed lot animals live in their manures.
"Then there's the deep pile of manure on which I stand, in which 534 sleeps. We don't know much about the hormones in it-where they will end up, or what they might do once they get there-but we do know something about the bacteria, which can find their way from the manure on the ground to his hide and from their into our hamburgers."-page 81 Omnivore's Dilemma
Evidence:Animals are forced to eat corn which is unnatural.
"Here, hundreds of millions of food animals that once lived on family farms and ranches are gathered together in great commissaries, where they consume as much of the mounting pile of surplus corn as they can digest, turning it into meat. Enlisting the cow in this undertaking has required particularly heroic efforts, since the cow is by nature not a corn eater. But Nature abhors a surplus, and the corn must be consumed." -Page 64 of Omnivore's Dilemma
"Here the drugs are plainly being used to treat sick animals, yet the animals probably wouldn’t be sick if not for the diet of grain we feed them.” -page 79
Evidence:Burgers are made from multiple cow meat.
"When the results came back, the lab reported at least four cows had been found in each patty -- and sometimes as many as eight. "Unfortunately, I don't think customers realize what goes into a single hamburger," Sarah Klein of the Center for Public Interest told "GMA." "I think we have a fantasy it's still coming from a single cow."-Keep your meat safe from E.Coli
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/meat-safe-ecoli-dr-richard-besser-tips/story?id=9029942
Evidence:Our food contains deadly chemicals.
"Ammonia kills E. Coli."-(Food Inc Film)
(But, ammonia is harmful for the human body)
"Even in low concentrations, inhaling ammonia or getting the solution on your skin can cause burning, fainting, or death, so always use caution when handling this chemical." -What is Ammonia?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ammonia.htm
Work Cited:
Corn-derived ingredients
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pdf/foodinc/foodinc_corn_derived_handout.pdf
Food Inc. Film
Keep your meat safe from E.Coli
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/meat-safe-ecoli-dr-richard-besser-tips/story?id=9029942
Omnivore's Dilemma By: Michael Pollen
What about grass-fed beef?
http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/grass-fed-beef/
What is Ammonia?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ammonia.htm
Many of the dominant social practices in our society-practices that define a "normal" life-on further investigation turn out to involve nightmarish and industrial atrocities.
Major Claim:
The food industry has negatively influenced our dominant social practices regarding food that we assumed to be 'normal.'
Supporting Claim #1:
The food industry abuses and takes advantage of the overproduction of corn.
Evidence: Farmers forced to produce more corn to make a living.
"A farm family needs a certain amount of cash flow every year to support itself, and if the price of corn falls, the only way to stay even is to sell more corn." -Omnivore's Dilemma page 53-54
Evidence:Our food is not as diverse as we believe
"The great edifice of variety and choice that is an American supermarket turns out to rest on a remarkably narrow biological foundation comprised of a tiny group of plants..."-Page 18 of Omnivore's Dilemma
Evidence: Feeding corn to animals that should be eating grass.
"Switching a cow from grass to grain is so disturbing to the animal’s digestive system that it can kill the animal if not done gradually and if the animal is not continually fed antibiotics. These animals are designed to forage, but we make them eat grain, primarily corn, in order to make them as fat as possible as fast as possible." -What About Grass-fed Beef?
http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/grass-fed-beef/
Evidence: Giving different names to corn to confuse the consumers what's in our food
The following is a list:
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pdf/foodinc/foodinc_corn_derived_handout.pdf
Supporting Claim #2:
The food industry values massive production over the health of the people and animals when paying closer attention to the treatment of our meat.
Evidence:Feed lot animals live in their manures.
"Then there's the deep pile of manure on which I stand, in which 534 sleeps. We don't know much about the hormones in it-where they will end up, or what they might do once they get there-but we do know something about the bacteria, which can find their way from the manure on the ground to his hide and from their into our hamburgers."-page 81 Omnivore's Dilemma
Evidence:Animals are forced to eat corn which is unnatural.
"Here, hundreds of millions of food animals that once lived on family farms and ranches are gathered together in great commissaries, where they consume as much of the mounting pile of surplus corn as they can digest, turning it into meat. Enlisting the cow in this undertaking has required particularly heroic efforts, since the cow is by nature not a corn eater. But Nature abhors a surplus, and the corn must be consumed." -Page 64 of Omnivore's Dilemma
"Here the drugs are plainly being used to treat sick animals, yet the animals probably wouldn’t be sick if not for the diet of grain we feed them.” -page 79
Evidence:Burgers are made from multiple cow meat.
"When the results came back, the lab reported at least four cows had been found in each patty -- and sometimes as many as eight. "Unfortunately, I don't think customers realize what goes into a single hamburger," Sarah Klein of the Center for Public Interest told "GMA." "I think we have a fantasy it's still coming from a single cow."-Keep your meat safe from E.Coli
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/meat-safe-ecoli-dr-richard-besser-tips/story?id=9029942
Evidence:Our food contains deadly chemicals.
"Ammonia kills E. Coli."-(Food Inc Film)
(But, ammonia is harmful for the human body)
"Even in low concentrations, inhaling ammonia or getting the solution on your skin can cause burning, fainting, or death, so always use caution when handling this chemical." -What is Ammonia?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ammonia.htm
Work Cited:
Corn-derived ingredients
http://www.pbs.org/pov/pdf/foodinc/foodinc_corn_derived_handout.pdf
Food Inc. Film
Keep your meat safe from E.Coli
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/meat-safe-ecoli-dr-richard-besser-tips/story?id=9029942
Omnivore's Dilemma By: Michael Pollen
What about grass-fed beef?
http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/grass-fed-beef/
What is Ammonia?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ammonia.htm
Friday, October 22, 2010
HW#10: Food Inc. Response
1. The huge food industries and companies are manipulating and controlling this industrial food chain where they hinder the dark truth from the consumers for their profits. We are being neglected of the information in the products sold in the marketplace and fast-food chains so we continue to fall for these cheap subsidized products that are destroying our health and the environment. The animals in the feedlots are treated as things than living things, letting them live in close dirty quarters in their manure, being fed subsidized corn and grain that are not meant to be eaten by these animals. Consumers and farmers who voice an opinion or take an action that can affect these corporation’s sales can get sued-causing many people to give up halfway because of the costs for court fees. The meats we eat are sprayed in ammonia to kill E. coli and the soybeans are being grown in chemical infested soil full of antibiotics. We are also too dependent on a scarce source of petroleum; some already predict that the ‘peek oil’ will be in the years 2011-2012. We need to make more efforts to change the U.S. food policies, for the goal of changing the high hospital rates for obesity and diabetes.
2. I liked both the movie and the book because they provided different ways of helping me become more aware and conscious about our food ways. The book gave a lot of information with lots of details. I liked the book more in ways that there was a little story for some of these chapters that made me feel more upset about the mistreatments of the feedlot animals. The movie on the other hand, provided intense visuals that made me feel disgusted and sick which helped me further realize the dangers we are so involved in. For example, in chapter 4, The Feedlot the book describes in depth about CAFO’s and the process of how the cows are being fed to later be slaughtered. This helped me raise my knowledge, but what really made me sick was when actually watching the factories visually. I’m really glad I read the book before watching the movie though, because it helped me connect the text to the visuals.
3. I always thought I knew how unhealthy fast-foods were, but I didn’t realize this whole industrial system regarding food. It’s a shock that as a society most people don’t give second thoughts about the products on the market’s shelves, because we put other priorities before food-which is exactly what the government and huge corporations wants us to do. The ones in huge powers know the dangerous affects of their mass production and it’s scary how far people are willing to go for huge profits. Even if I watch the movie or read the book many more times I can’t help but ask, “Why?” Why are we so ignorant about food when we should have the right to know what’s going in our bodies? I know the answer is because the huge powers don’t want us to know, but it’s frustrating and hard to believe still. It’s not easy to change the system, but I think that it would work better if more people know what they’re eating and where it’s coming from. There’s nothing in this food system that can be justified, so more people should know and make the right decisions.
2. I liked both the movie and the book because they provided different ways of helping me become more aware and conscious about our food ways. The book gave a lot of information with lots of details. I liked the book more in ways that there was a little story for some of these chapters that made me feel more upset about the mistreatments of the feedlot animals. The movie on the other hand, provided intense visuals that made me feel disgusted and sick which helped me further realize the dangers we are so involved in. For example, in chapter 4, The Feedlot the book describes in depth about CAFO’s and the process of how the cows are being fed to later be slaughtered. This helped me raise my knowledge, but what really made me sick was when actually watching the factories visually. I’m really glad I read the book before watching the movie though, because it helped me connect the text to the visuals.
3. I always thought I knew how unhealthy fast-foods were, but I didn’t realize this whole industrial system regarding food. It’s a shock that as a society most people don’t give second thoughts about the products on the market’s shelves, because we put other priorities before food-which is exactly what the government and huge corporations wants us to do. The ones in huge powers know the dangerous affects of their mass production and it’s scary how far people are willing to go for huge profits. Even if I watch the movie or read the book many more times I can’t help but ask, “Why?” Why are we so ignorant about food when we should have the right to know what’s going in our bodies? I know the answer is because the huge powers don’t want us to know, but it’s frustrating and hard to believe still. It’s not easy to change the system, but I think that it would work better if more people know what they’re eating and where it’s coming from. There’s nothing in this food system that can be justified, so more people should know and make the right decisions.
Monday, October 18, 2010
HW 7D
Chapter 17: The Ethics of Eating Animals
Précis:
Philosophers like PETA and Singer argue that most people are ‘speciesist’ for grouping people before other animals, and they use excuses to justify their reasons for causing them suffering and eating them. Some people argued that animals unlike humans, do not feel suffering because of the lack of language-however it is clearly obvious when animals feel suffering (the CAFO’s) and when they are full of happiness (Salatin’s farm). There is a clear debate on the issue of considering if animals can feel suffering and if we are indeed ‘speciesist’ for our actions.
Gems:
“Indeed, it is doubtful you can build a genuinely sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients and support local food production. If our concern is for the health of nature-rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls-then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do.” -Page 327
“Few will take up such an offer; many of us would prefer to delegate the job of looking to a government bureaucrat or a journalist, but the very option of looking-that transparency-is probably the best way to ensure that animals are killed in a manner we can abide. No doubt some of us will decide there is no killing of animals we can countenance, and they probably shouldn’t eat meat.” -Page 331
Thoughts:
1. I can understand where the animal people are saying, but I must disagree on the value of the individual animal, and not the species as a whole. Organizations tried to save the almost extinct species of the fox at Santa Cruz by rid of as many pigs and golden eagles-I can somewhat understand why the animal people would be upset, but I think their priorities are out of order...
2. I don’t think it really matters whether people are vegans or eat meat. I guess humans don’t have to eat meat, but as long as we have been fine being omnivorous eaters for centuries it’s okay to choose to eat meat. Carnivores kill other animals for food, so humans have the right to eat meat as well. This idea was disagreed somewhere within the chapter, but it hasn’t convinced me to change my ideas.
3. I like Salatin’s farm and the see-through window idea. I agree that CAFO’s and slaughterhouses should also let customers see the brutality and process of how the animals they’ll be eating would get butchered. What the customer decides is up to them, but its strange that we’re not allowed to see how the food we eat gets processed...
Chapter 18: Hunting-The Meat
Précis:
Some hunters like Angelo hunt simply to eat tasty meat. Even though hunting is now mostly seen as a ‘game,’ Ortega believes that the hunting is perhaps the only way to return to nature. Hunting’s purpose is not necessarily for killing, but at the same time people cannot be considered a hunter without the experience of taking responsibility over the meat they kill. It is a controversy whether the pride hunters feel after killing an animal successfully if we are cruel for being happy over ‘murder,’ or if we are simply happy for success.
Gems:
“Killing is one of those requirements. And although Ortega says one does not hunt in order to kill, he also says that one must kill in order to have hunted. Why? For authenticity’s sake. If for me this venture was about taking ultimate responsibility for the animals I eat, their deaths included, well, I hadn’t done that yet, had I?”-Page 349
“Dreams of innocence are just that; they usually depend on a denial of reality that can be its own form of hubris. Ortega suggests that there s an immorality in failing to look clearly at reality, or in believing that the sheer force of human will can somehow overcome it.”-Page 362
Thoughts:
1. Hunting may be a solution to the problems with industrial agriculture, however I don’t think this is realistic. Like most people, I don’t like the idea of seeing the dead bodies of animals I would eat when they’re hunted and killed. It’ll take a lot to convince most people in industrialized areas (like the city) to go back to the ways of hunting.
2. I don’t think hunting itself is bad at all, when comparing it to the treatments of the cows at the CAFO’s and the fattened overweight chickens. I think I would feel more safe eating meat from animals that has been hunted down from where they roam in natural locations, then from industrial factories where cows are cramped together in their feces.
3. Hunting is controversial because of the pride hunters feel after they killed an animal. But, I think as long as humans can eat meat, they’re allowed to. I don’t think hunters necessarily have joy in the process of killing, but rather to the fact that they have done their hunting successfully. It’s natural for humans to feel pride when they are successful.
Chapter 19: Gathering-The Fungi
Précis:
Most people are reassured about mushroom information mostly through other individuals who went through the gathering experience than reading a book about it. Even in today’s sciences, there are still many mysteries surrounding the functions of mushrooms and if we really need to eat them, but they are necessary in nature to break down organic matter and decomposition. ‘Hunting’ for mushrooms is a difficult thing to do with no clear way to do them, so it really depends on the ‘pop out effect.’
Gems:
“The field guides contain our culture’s accumulated wisdom on the subject of mushrooms. Curiously, though, the process of imparting and absorbing this life-and-death information works much better in person than it does on paper, whether through writing or even photography.”-Page 372
“Mushrooms behave unpredictably, and theories can go only as far in pushing back their mystery. ‘It’s a lot like gambling,’ Ben said. ‘You’re looking for the big score, the mother lode. The conditions might be perfect in every way, but you never know what you’re going to find around the next bend-it could be a sea of mushrooms or nothing at all.” -Page 384
Thoughts:
1. I didn’t know there were only theories about mushrooms, and not actual facts. I just thought I had little knowledge of the functions and nutrients of the mushroom, so I was surprised there’s not much that has been found out yet of the oddness of the species.
2. Maybe mushrooms don’t contain a nutrient that we necessarily need to take in, and their importance only lies in their role in their natural habitats. Mushrooms help life keep going, but they don’t need to be eaten.
3. I didn’t think gathering mushrooms was so difficult to do. I wonder why mushrooms tend to appear a lot after fires?
Chapter 20: The Perfect Meal
Précis:
It’s a huge challenge to create the ‘perfect meal’ because of the seasons each food is grown naturally and the effort to gather all these natural foods on our own. However, cooking is also a way to honor our food that’s been sacrificed to be eaten by us and to thank the producers. (I.e. the farmers and the hunters) A perfect meal involves the help of many people, and the knowledge of where all the food we eat comes from.
Gems:
“Putting a great dish on the table is our way of celebrating the wonders of form we humans can create from this matter-this quality of sacrificed life-just before the body takes its first destructive bite.” -Page 405
“The meal was more ritual than realistic because it dwelled on such things, reminding us how very much nature offers to the omnivore, the forests as much as the fields, the oceans as much as the meadows. If I had to give this dinner a name, it would have to be the Omnivore’s Thanksgiving.” -Page 410
Thoughts:
1. The book in general provided a lot of knowledge and helped me raise more awareness of how clueless most people are about where our food comes from. It’s a bit disappointing that the government only cares about profit more than the people’s health and awareness, but it’s also sad that most of us did not even question the food labels and how these products were being made.
2. I don’t think I’ll be able to eat fast-food in a long while, but I’ll probably eat it again once in a while. It’s unrealistic to eat completely healthy because the society we live in is so industrialized and manipulated by the higher powers. But, it’s always an option that I’m a bit interested in trying at least once.
3. Is there a way to avoid both extreme ways of feeding ourselves?
Précis:
Philosophers like PETA and Singer argue that most people are ‘speciesist’ for grouping people before other animals, and they use excuses to justify their reasons for causing them suffering and eating them. Some people argued that animals unlike humans, do not feel suffering because of the lack of language-however it is clearly obvious when animals feel suffering (the CAFO’s) and when they are full of happiness (Salatin’s farm). There is a clear debate on the issue of considering if animals can feel suffering and if we are indeed ‘speciesist’ for our actions.
Gems:
“Indeed, it is doubtful you can build a genuinely sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients and support local food production. If our concern is for the health of nature-rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls-then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do.” -Page 327
“Few will take up such an offer; many of us would prefer to delegate the job of looking to a government bureaucrat or a journalist, but the very option of looking-that transparency-is probably the best way to ensure that animals are killed in a manner we can abide. No doubt some of us will decide there is no killing of animals we can countenance, and they probably shouldn’t eat meat.” -Page 331
Thoughts:
1. I can understand where the animal people are saying, but I must disagree on the value of the individual animal, and not the species as a whole. Organizations tried to save the almost extinct species of the fox at Santa Cruz by rid of as many pigs and golden eagles-I can somewhat understand why the animal people would be upset, but I think their priorities are out of order...
2. I don’t think it really matters whether people are vegans or eat meat. I guess humans don’t have to eat meat, but as long as we have been fine being omnivorous eaters for centuries it’s okay to choose to eat meat. Carnivores kill other animals for food, so humans have the right to eat meat as well. This idea was disagreed somewhere within the chapter, but it hasn’t convinced me to change my ideas.
3. I like Salatin’s farm and the see-through window idea. I agree that CAFO’s and slaughterhouses should also let customers see the brutality and process of how the animals they’ll be eating would get butchered. What the customer decides is up to them, but its strange that we’re not allowed to see how the food we eat gets processed...
Chapter 18: Hunting-The Meat
Précis:
Some hunters like Angelo hunt simply to eat tasty meat. Even though hunting is now mostly seen as a ‘game,’ Ortega believes that the hunting is perhaps the only way to return to nature. Hunting’s purpose is not necessarily for killing, but at the same time people cannot be considered a hunter without the experience of taking responsibility over the meat they kill. It is a controversy whether the pride hunters feel after killing an animal successfully if we are cruel for being happy over ‘murder,’ or if we are simply happy for success.
Gems:
“Killing is one of those requirements. And although Ortega says one does not hunt in order to kill, he also says that one must kill in order to have hunted. Why? For authenticity’s sake. If for me this venture was about taking ultimate responsibility for the animals I eat, their deaths included, well, I hadn’t done that yet, had I?”-Page 349
“Dreams of innocence are just that; they usually depend on a denial of reality that can be its own form of hubris. Ortega suggests that there s an immorality in failing to look clearly at reality, or in believing that the sheer force of human will can somehow overcome it.”-Page 362
Thoughts:
1. Hunting may be a solution to the problems with industrial agriculture, however I don’t think this is realistic. Like most people, I don’t like the idea of seeing the dead bodies of animals I would eat when they’re hunted and killed. It’ll take a lot to convince most people in industrialized areas (like the city) to go back to the ways of hunting.
2. I don’t think hunting itself is bad at all, when comparing it to the treatments of the cows at the CAFO’s and the fattened overweight chickens. I think I would feel more safe eating meat from animals that has been hunted down from where they roam in natural locations, then from industrial factories where cows are cramped together in their feces.
3. Hunting is controversial because of the pride hunters feel after they killed an animal. But, I think as long as humans can eat meat, they’re allowed to. I don’t think hunters necessarily have joy in the process of killing, but rather to the fact that they have done their hunting successfully. It’s natural for humans to feel pride when they are successful.
Chapter 19: Gathering-The Fungi
Précis:
Most people are reassured about mushroom information mostly through other individuals who went through the gathering experience than reading a book about it. Even in today’s sciences, there are still many mysteries surrounding the functions of mushrooms and if we really need to eat them, but they are necessary in nature to break down organic matter and decomposition. ‘Hunting’ for mushrooms is a difficult thing to do with no clear way to do them, so it really depends on the ‘pop out effect.’
Gems:
“The field guides contain our culture’s accumulated wisdom on the subject of mushrooms. Curiously, though, the process of imparting and absorbing this life-and-death information works much better in person than it does on paper, whether through writing or even photography.”-Page 372
“Mushrooms behave unpredictably, and theories can go only as far in pushing back their mystery. ‘It’s a lot like gambling,’ Ben said. ‘You’re looking for the big score, the mother lode. The conditions might be perfect in every way, but you never know what you’re going to find around the next bend-it could be a sea of mushrooms or nothing at all.” -Page 384
Thoughts:
1. I didn’t know there were only theories about mushrooms, and not actual facts. I just thought I had little knowledge of the functions and nutrients of the mushroom, so I was surprised there’s not much that has been found out yet of the oddness of the species.
2. Maybe mushrooms don’t contain a nutrient that we necessarily need to take in, and their importance only lies in their role in their natural habitats. Mushrooms help life keep going, but they don’t need to be eaten.
3. I didn’t think gathering mushrooms was so difficult to do. I wonder why mushrooms tend to appear a lot after fires?
Chapter 20: The Perfect Meal
Précis:
It’s a huge challenge to create the ‘perfect meal’ because of the seasons each food is grown naturally and the effort to gather all these natural foods on our own. However, cooking is also a way to honor our food that’s been sacrificed to be eaten by us and to thank the producers. (I.e. the farmers and the hunters) A perfect meal involves the help of many people, and the knowledge of where all the food we eat comes from.
Gems:
“Putting a great dish on the table is our way of celebrating the wonders of form we humans can create from this matter-this quality of sacrificed life-just before the body takes its first destructive bite.” -Page 405
“The meal was more ritual than realistic because it dwelled on such things, reminding us how very much nature offers to the omnivore, the forests as much as the fields, the oceans as much as the meadows. If I had to give this dinner a name, it would have to be the Omnivore’s Thanksgiving.” -Page 410
Thoughts:
1. The book in general provided a lot of knowledge and helped me raise more awareness of how clueless most people are about where our food comes from. It’s a bit disappointing that the government only cares about profit more than the people’s health and awareness, but it’s also sad that most of us did not even question the food labels and how these products were being made.
2. I don’t think I’ll be able to eat fast-food in a long while, but I’ll probably eat it again once in a while. It’s unrealistic to eat completely healthy because the society we live in is so industrialized and manipulated by the higher powers. But, it’s always an option that I’m a bit interested in trying at least once.
3. Is there a way to avoid both extreme ways of feeding ourselves?
Friday, October 15, 2010
HW#9: Freakonomics Response
1. In the film, there were definitely intellectual moves of asking questions. Asking a question that has no clear answer is always a start to find out answers, or at least an idea/theory of the topic. One question that was asked in the film was, “How can I get my daughter to potty train?” An incentive that the economist used to answer this question was to give the girl a pack of M&M’s every time she went to the bathroom. Ironically, the child ended up taking advantage of the situation and ended up receiving many packs of chocolate-which shows that on a bigger scale(connection), the government can never fully be able to monitor a whole country.
Another “tool” that Freakonomics repeatedly used was number data and statistics to support certain theories. For example, an experiment was used to 9th graders if their grades would rise up if paid $50 dollars just for getting average C’s. Results showed a 5 to 7 percent of students passing because of the money idea, which showed that money does not necessarily always motivate and influence students to achieve educational success.
Lastly, the film used “tools” for figuring out topics. The example for this tool goes back to the first scenario I mentioned in the first paragraph: with the incentive of giving an economist’s girl M&M’s every time she went to potty train. When I started watching the scenario, I did not think too deeply about the topic and thought it was a silly experiment. But, in the end, I realized that this connects on a bigger scale when it comes to trying to get people to listen to you by giving them benefits. This small-scale experiment lead to a technique in figuring out a topic-an idea that it is difficult to manipulate a single girl with chocolate, so how can the government ever be able to get the whole country to listen to his incentives?
2. Freakonomics authors addressed the “correlation versus causation” issue with the theory about ‘typical African American names.’ Two speakers with split opinions spoke about if certain names connect to poverty issues. It was hard to distinguish the two different viewpoints until it was discussed in class, so I would say that they support (not necessarily prove) that some correlation is causation. The Indian speaker talked about how names are definitely causative with their poverty because of the statistics showing that workers with unique ‘African American’ names have a less chance to get the job and regardless of experience, gets paid less than White Americans with typical names.
A/B.) I somewhat agree because not only was the film more entertaining and interesting than I thought, but the film taught a few lessons and theories that changed how I look at things slightly. Even with the scenario with the potty-training and paying 50 dollars to raise grades, the film showed how the simplicity of these little experiments connect to life on a bigger scale. We tend to think we can easily get people to do things with simple things like money and food, but really-it isn’t that simple. Nobody has control over other people’s motivation therefore there won’t ever be a solution to get people to do certain things. Therefore, these simple scenarios throughout the film was a good example of the weirdness of our assumptions for simple solutions-the hidden in plain sight weirdness of or dominant social practices.
C.) One of the theories (even though it didn’t support what the theorists hoped for) was that if we pay money or give something to the person’s benefit, we may be able to get them to do certain things. (i.e. paying money to students to raise their grades) This idea connects to our investigation of U.S. food ways. Omnivore’s Dilemma repeatedly goes back to the idea of corn being the root of all problems. So, an incentive would be to have the government subsidize corns, so farmers are willing to get rid of all that corn if they are going to end up receiving money. This may actually work a lot better than the theories used in the film, since industrial farmers are already overproducing corn for these subsidies-meaning they’ll most likely do anything as long as they get paid.
Another “tool” that Freakonomics repeatedly used was number data and statistics to support certain theories. For example, an experiment was used to 9th graders if their grades would rise up if paid $50 dollars just for getting average C’s. Results showed a 5 to 7 percent of students passing because of the money idea, which showed that money does not necessarily always motivate and influence students to achieve educational success.
Lastly, the film used “tools” for figuring out topics. The example for this tool goes back to the first scenario I mentioned in the first paragraph: with the incentive of giving an economist’s girl M&M’s every time she went to potty train. When I started watching the scenario, I did not think too deeply about the topic and thought it was a silly experiment. But, in the end, I realized that this connects on a bigger scale when it comes to trying to get people to listen to you by giving them benefits. This small-scale experiment lead to a technique in figuring out a topic-an idea that it is difficult to manipulate a single girl with chocolate, so how can the government ever be able to get the whole country to listen to his incentives?
2. Freakonomics authors addressed the “correlation versus causation” issue with the theory about ‘typical African American names.’ Two speakers with split opinions spoke about if certain names connect to poverty issues. It was hard to distinguish the two different viewpoints until it was discussed in class, so I would say that they support (not necessarily prove) that some correlation is causation. The Indian speaker talked about how names are definitely causative with their poverty because of the statistics showing that workers with unique ‘African American’ names have a less chance to get the job and regardless of experience, gets paid less than White Americans with typical names.
A/B.) I somewhat agree because not only was the film more entertaining and interesting than I thought, but the film taught a few lessons and theories that changed how I look at things slightly. Even with the scenario with the potty-training and paying 50 dollars to raise grades, the film showed how the simplicity of these little experiments connect to life on a bigger scale. We tend to think we can easily get people to do things with simple things like money and food, but really-it isn’t that simple. Nobody has control over other people’s motivation therefore there won’t ever be a solution to get people to do certain things. Therefore, these simple scenarios throughout the film was a good example of the weirdness of our assumptions for simple solutions-the hidden in plain sight weirdness of or dominant social practices.
C.) One of the theories (even though it didn’t support what the theorists hoped for) was that if we pay money or give something to the person’s benefit, we may be able to get them to do certain things. (i.e. paying money to students to raise their grades) This idea connects to our investigation of U.S. food ways. Omnivore’s Dilemma repeatedly goes back to the idea of corn being the root of all problems. So, an incentive would be to have the government subsidize corns, so farmers are willing to get rid of all that corn if they are going to end up receiving money. This may actually work a lot better than the theories used in the film, since industrial farmers are already overproducing corn for these subsidies-meaning they’ll most likely do anything as long as they get paid.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Hw#7C
Chapter 11: The Animals-Practicing Complexity
Précis:
Most farmers follow the conventional way of farming, which is unhealthy and dangerous but breaks down agriculture in simple steps to follow. However, the right way is to follow the complexity of the natural way, by being able to do the physical and mental challenges of real farming. (I.e. moving the cattle every day) Unlike industrial farming, Saltin’s way of farming repeats a certain cycle every day where every living thing is connected to one another.
Gems:
“By contrast, the efficiencies of natural systems flow from complexity and interdependence-by definition the very opposite of simplification...To measure the efficiency of such a complex system you need to count not only all the products it produces but also all the costs it eliminates: antibiotics, wormers, parasiticides, and fertilizers.”-Page 214
“Relations are what matters most, and the health of the cultivated turns on the health of the wild.” -Page 225
Thoughts:
1. Salatin’s way of farming sounded very tedious and tiring, so I actually would understand why many farmers end up turning to the simple industrial way of farming.
2. The recommended solution to the pig’s tail chewing in the CAFO’s was a shock and disappointment personally. The gap between this and Salatin’s contented pigs makes me feel as though farm animals are born into a lottery like society-they either get lucky or unlucky in the farms.
3. Industrial farmers should not even be considered a farmer. Clearly, they are just lazy and like the idea of simplicity. Surely, they would be able to save up more money for a living if they turned their backs at the government’s agricultural policies.
Chapter 12: Slaughter-In a Glass Abattoir
Précis: The USDA are speechless when it comes to local farmers like Salatin’s, since the way they regulate their farms are a lot healthier than those growing under government policies. No matter what farm is raising the animals, killing them is inevitable for us to be able to eat them, but it is a lot cleaner and less cruel than the methods of those industrial farmers. The customers of Polyface’s farm are free to watch the process of their dinner being killed since it so clean and reassuring that their slaughtering technique doesn’t use things like antibiotics.
Gems:
“Imagine if the walls of every slaughterhouse and animal factory were as transparent as Polyface’s-if not open to the air then at least made of glass So much of what happens behind those walls-the cruelty, the carelessness, the filth-would simply have to stop.” -Page 235
“We do not allow the government to dictate what religion you can observe, so why should we allow them to dictate what kind of food you can buy?” He believes “freedom of food”-the freedom to buy a pork chop from the farmer who raised the hog-should be a constitutional right.” -Page 236
Thoughts:
1. It is ironic how the USDA is ‘supposed’ to inspect for the health of how the animals are taken care of, but they are actually trying to put local farms out of business. It was mentioned in class of how we always have a part of us that wants to believe the government is there in support of us, but this just shows that they could really care less unless it benefits in their interests.
2. It would be a great incentive if factories and slaughterhouses of industrial farmers are also see through walls. Customers are less likely to continue eating unhealthy foods if they actually see with their own eyes how their foods are being processed. (This may be a naïve solution, but it could work...even though I wouldn’t know if anybody can get the government to let the process be revealed to the public).
3. Money and benefits easily gets people (i.e. industrial farmers) to do whatever the government tells them to do. This makes a lot of sense, so I wouldn’t be sure if there can ever be a solution to make foods healthier unless corn just disappeared.
Chapter 13: The Market-“Greetings from the Non-Barcode People”
Précis:
Most customers who buy from markets are ignorant with their knowledge of food and cheap prices. Local farmers like Salatin’s have no choice but to try having better connections with customers (and chefs) to educate and further our knowledge about food (i.e. seasonal foods and about prices). Local farmers like these aren’t necessarily trying to destroy the industrial food ways, but rather further this food-movement to raise awareness of food and health for customers like us.
Gems:
“Society is not bearing the cost of water pollution, of antibiotic resistance, of food-borne illnesses, of crop subsidies, of subsidized corn oil and water-of all the hidden costs to the environment and the taxpayer that make cheap food seem cheap. No thinking person will tell you they don’t care about all that.” -Page 243
“We have to battle the idea that you can have anything you want any times you want it. Like ‘spring lamb.” What the hell does that mean...But the market’s become totally out of sync with nature.” -Page 252
Thoughts:
1. I do think that this food-movement will impact a lot of people to change their food choices, but I honestly doubt that it will cause a major change in today’s society. The government and CAFO will definitely react to any changes in people’s ideas about food ways and say something to distract our beliefs. (Like talking about bioterrorism as mentioned once in the book).
2. I’m not too sure if it would work, but perhaps having food ways classes as a mandatory curriculum in public schools would help students make better food choices and raise awareness. (But, then again being able to convince the D.O.E to change class curriculums is unlikely)
3. U.S. society is too lazy that we tend to go to more convenient choices, so it is also a cultural obstacle that local farmers would have to confront. Even if most Americans get informed deeply about our foods, what is the likelihood that they will all go out of their way to buy local foods?
Chapter 14: The Meal-Grass Fed
Précis:
Most consumers assume all food is the same (‘chicken is chicken and beef beef’) so they do not realize the changes between the balance of quantity and quality. Even with the assumption of fish being healthier than meat, can work in reverse if the steer is fed grass and the salmon is fed grain. The process of cooking these natural foods causes many complex chemical reactions, creating a strong distinct taste.
Gems:
“The needs of a long industrial food chain might justify such a trade-off, but when you can eat corn picked a few hours before dinner, there’s no reason for it. Unless of course an industrial diet of easy sugars has dulled your taste for the earthy sweetness of corn, now that it has to compete with things like soda.” -Page 266
“As in the case of our imperfect knowledge of soil, the limits of our knowledge of nutrition have obscured what the industrialization of the food chain is doing to our health. But the changes in the composition of fats in our diet may account for many of the diseases of civilization-cardiac, diabetes, obesity, etc-” -Page 268
Thoughts:
1. I had no clue about the omega-3 and omega-6. I was pretty shocked to read the importance of the balance between different types of fats. It just shows that the reason today’s society has so many people with serious diseases...goes back to the idea of the unhealthy corn.
2. I also thought that fish was generally healthier than meat. It’s sad that industrialization has obscured my sense of knowledge as well.
3. Even if I (or anybody else) attempts to change to a more local diet, I think we would all give up easily. We’re just too used to convenience.
Chapter 15: The Forager
Précis: Agriculture already took away the choice of foraging as a viable technique because there isn’t enough to feed the whole population today. Today, foraging is considered more of a teaching than something economic/political. To become a legal hunter, a license is required, where it involves taking hunting courses and a long test. Hunting is also risky because sufficient knowledge is needed to distinguish what is edible, and what is poisonous.
Gems:
“Agriculture brought humans a great many blessings, but it also brought infectious disease (from living in close quarters with one another and our animals) and malnutrition (from eating too much of the same things when crops were good, and not enough of anything when they weren’t).” -Page 279
“Like other important forms of play, it promises to teach us something about who we are beneath the crust of our civilized, practical, grown-up lives. Foraging for wild plants and animals is, after all, the way the human species has fed itself for 99 percent of its time on earth; this is precisely the food chain natural selection designed for us.” -Page 280
Thoughts:
1. I never even thought about aquaculture. (Page 279-280) This is actually a shock to me, since I love going fishing and eating them when I have the chance. It really is a depressing reality that we rely so much on a convenient, yet unhealthy, system for food.
2. Hunting seems so distant and old-fashioned, and it’s sad that in today’s society, we can’t go back to hunting just because there isn’t enough for everyone...
3. Why are there so many people (population) today than when there were mostly hunters and gatherers?
Chapter 16: The Omnivore’s Dilemma
Précis: Humans and rats deal with struggles and benefits unknown to other specialized eaters (like the monarch butterfly) when it comes to food choices, because our diet is so vast and requires a wide range of nutrients. Cuisines and taboos of different cultures have some biological senses that helps supports our health (even though there are some don’t make biological sense), and reduces ingestion tensions because of the familiar flavors/tastes. America has the most health problems, not necessarily because of the food itself, but because of the lack of a culture.
Gems:
“The cow depends on the ingenious adaptation of the rumen to turn an exclusive diet of grasses into a balanced diet; we depend instead on the prodigious powers of recognition, memory, and communication that allow us to cook cassava or identify an edible mushroom and share that precious information.” -Page 294
“Instead of relying on the accumulated wisdom of cuisine, or even on the wisdom of our senses, we rely on expert opinion, advertising, government food pyramids, and diet books, and we place our faith in science to sort out of us what culture once did with rather more success. Such had been the genius of capitalism, to re-create something akin to a state of nature in the modern supermarket or fast-food outlet...” -Page 303
Thoughts:
1. I agree with the culture theory, because America doesn’t have a cuisine necessarily, so their bound to get themselves involved with the ‘diets’ and ‘nutrition’ advertisements. I personally ignore these ads, because they sound so fake but perhaps that’s because I have a cultural cuisine I eat most of the time, which balances my healthy diet.
2. I wondered why people used rats for experiments often. I knew there were some similarity between us and rats, but I didn’t know quite what that was. The similarities grossed me out a bit, because it means that as long as there are lots of people living everywhere, there’s going to be mice and rats.
3. Human beings are weird when I think about it. Unlike most living species, we don’t have one specific food we eat, like grass and eucalyptus leaves. We have to think through our food choices the most, but at the same time these complicated traits has helped us be able to live almost anywhere in the world.
Précis:
Most farmers follow the conventional way of farming, which is unhealthy and dangerous but breaks down agriculture in simple steps to follow. However, the right way is to follow the complexity of the natural way, by being able to do the physical and mental challenges of real farming. (I.e. moving the cattle every day) Unlike industrial farming, Saltin’s way of farming repeats a certain cycle every day where every living thing is connected to one another.
Gems:
“By contrast, the efficiencies of natural systems flow from complexity and interdependence-by definition the very opposite of simplification...To measure the efficiency of such a complex system you need to count not only all the products it produces but also all the costs it eliminates: antibiotics, wormers, parasiticides, and fertilizers.”-Page 214
“Relations are what matters most, and the health of the cultivated turns on the health of the wild.” -Page 225
Thoughts:
1. Salatin’s way of farming sounded very tedious and tiring, so I actually would understand why many farmers end up turning to the simple industrial way of farming.
2. The recommended solution to the pig’s tail chewing in the CAFO’s was a shock and disappointment personally. The gap between this and Salatin’s contented pigs makes me feel as though farm animals are born into a lottery like society-they either get lucky or unlucky in the farms.
3. Industrial farmers should not even be considered a farmer. Clearly, they are just lazy and like the idea of simplicity. Surely, they would be able to save up more money for a living if they turned their backs at the government’s agricultural policies.
Chapter 12: Slaughter-In a Glass Abattoir
Précis: The USDA are speechless when it comes to local farmers like Salatin’s, since the way they regulate their farms are a lot healthier than those growing under government policies. No matter what farm is raising the animals, killing them is inevitable for us to be able to eat them, but it is a lot cleaner and less cruel than the methods of those industrial farmers. The customers of Polyface’s farm are free to watch the process of their dinner being killed since it so clean and reassuring that their slaughtering technique doesn’t use things like antibiotics.
Gems:
“Imagine if the walls of every slaughterhouse and animal factory were as transparent as Polyface’s-if not open to the air then at least made of glass So much of what happens behind those walls-the cruelty, the carelessness, the filth-would simply have to stop.” -Page 235
“We do not allow the government to dictate what religion you can observe, so why should we allow them to dictate what kind of food you can buy?” He believes “freedom of food”-the freedom to buy a pork chop from the farmer who raised the hog-should be a constitutional right.” -Page 236
Thoughts:
1. It is ironic how the USDA is ‘supposed’ to inspect for the health of how the animals are taken care of, but they are actually trying to put local farms out of business. It was mentioned in class of how we always have a part of us that wants to believe the government is there in support of us, but this just shows that they could really care less unless it benefits in their interests.
2. It would be a great incentive if factories and slaughterhouses of industrial farmers are also see through walls. Customers are less likely to continue eating unhealthy foods if they actually see with their own eyes how their foods are being processed. (This may be a naïve solution, but it could work...even though I wouldn’t know if anybody can get the government to let the process be revealed to the public).
3. Money and benefits easily gets people (i.e. industrial farmers) to do whatever the government tells them to do. This makes a lot of sense, so I wouldn’t be sure if there can ever be a solution to make foods healthier unless corn just disappeared.
Chapter 13: The Market-“Greetings from the Non-Barcode People”
Précis:
Most customers who buy from markets are ignorant with their knowledge of food and cheap prices. Local farmers like Salatin’s have no choice but to try having better connections with customers (and chefs) to educate and further our knowledge about food (i.e. seasonal foods and about prices). Local farmers like these aren’t necessarily trying to destroy the industrial food ways, but rather further this food-movement to raise awareness of food and health for customers like us.
Gems:
“Society is not bearing the cost of water pollution, of antibiotic resistance, of food-borne illnesses, of crop subsidies, of subsidized corn oil and water-of all the hidden costs to the environment and the taxpayer that make cheap food seem cheap. No thinking person will tell you they don’t care about all that.” -Page 243
“We have to battle the idea that you can have anything you want any times you want it. Like ‘spring lamb.” What the hell does that mean...But the market’s become totally out of sync with nature.” -Page 252
Thoughts:
1. I do think that this food-movement will impact a lot of people to change their food choices, but I honestly doubt that it will cause a major change in today’s society. The government and CAFO will definitely react to any changes in people’s ideas about food ways and say something to distract our beliefs. (Like talking about bioterrorism as mentioned once in the book).
2. I’m not too sure if it would work, but perhaps having food ways classes as a mandatory curriculum in public schools would help students make better food choices and raise awareness. (But, then again being able to convince the D.O.E to change class curriculums is unlikely)
3. U.S. society is too lazy that we tend to go to more convenient choices, so it is also a cultural obstacle that local farmers would have to confront. Even if most Americans get informed deeply about our foods, what is the likelihood that they will all go out of their way to buy local foods?
Chapter 14: The Meal-Grass Fed
Précis:
Most consumers assume all food is the same (‘chicken is chicken and beef beef’) so they do not realize the changes between the balance of quantity and quality. Even with the assumption of fish being healthier than meat, can work in reverse if the steer is fed grass and the salmon is fed grain. The process of cooking these natural foods causes many complex chemical reactions, creating a strong distinct taste.
Gems:
“The needs of a long industrial food chain might justify such a trade-off, but when you can eat corn picked a few hours before dinner, there’s no reason for it. Unless of course an industrial diet of easy sugars has dulled your taste for the earthy sweetness of corn, now that it has to compete with things like soda.” -Page 266
“As in the case of our imperfect knowledge of soil, the limits of our knowledge of nutrition have obscured what the industrialization of the food chain is doing to our health. But the changes in the composition of fats in our diet may account for many of the diseases of civilization-cardiac, diabetes, obesity, etc-” -Page 268
Thoughts:
1. I had no clue about the omega-3 and omega-6. I was pretty shocked to read the importance of the balance between different types of fats. It just shows that the reason today’s society has so many people with serious diseases...goes back to the idea of the unhealthy corn.
2. I also thought that fish was generally healthier than meat. It’s sad that industrialization has obscured my sense of knowledge as well.
3. Even if I (or anybody else) attempts to change to a more local diet, I think we would all give up easily. We’re just too used to convenience.
Chapter 15: The Forager
Précis: Agriculture already took away the choice of foraging as a viable technique because there isn’t enough to feed the whole population today. Today, foraging is considered more of a teaching than something economic/political. To become a legal hunter, a license is required, where it involves taking hunting courses and a long test. Hunting is also risky because sufficient knowledge is needed to distinguish what is edible, and what is poisonous.
Gems:
“Agriculture brought humans a great many blessings, but it also brought infectious disease (from living in close quarters with one another and our animals) and malnutrition (from eating too much of the same things when crops were good, and not enough of anything when they weren’t).” -Page 279
“Like other important forms of play, it promises to teach us something about who we are beneath the crust of our civilized, practical, grown-up lives. Foraging for wild plants and animals is, after all, the way the human species has fed itself for 99 percent of its time on earth; this is precisely the food chain natural selection designed for us.” -Page 280
Thoughts:
1. I never even thought about aquaculture. (Page 279-280) This is actually a shock to me, since I love going fishing and eating them when I have the chance. It really is a depressing reality that we rely so much on a convenient, yet unhealthy, system for food.
2. Hunting seems so distant and old-fashioned, and it’s sad that in today’s society, we can’t go back to hunting just because there isn’t enough for everyone...
3. Why are there so many people (population) today than when there were mostly hunters and gatherers?
Chapter 16: The Omnivore’s Dilemma
Précis: Humans and rats deal with struggles and benefits unknown to other specialized eaters (like the monarch butterfly) when it comes to food choices, because our diet is so vast and requires a wide range of nutrients. Cuisines and taboos of different cultures have some biological senses that helps supports our health (even though there are some don’t make biological sense), and reduces ingestion tensions because of the familiar flavors/tastes. America has the most health problems, not necessarily because of the food itself, but because of the lack of a culture.
Gems:
“The cow depends on the ingenious adaptation of the rumen to turn an exclusive diet of grasses into a balanced diet; we depend instead on the prodigious powers of recognition, memory, and communication that allow us to cook cassava or identify an edible mushroom and share that precious information.” -Page 294
“Instead of relying on the accumulated wisdom of cuisine, or even on the wisdom of our senses, we rely on expert opinion, advertising, government food pyramids, and diet books, and we place our faith in science to sort out of us what culture once did with rather more success. Such had been the genius of capitalism, to re-create something akin to a state of nature in the modern supermarket or fast-food outlet...” -Page 303
Thoughts:
1. I agree with the culture theory, because America doesn’t have a cuisine necessarily, so their bound to get themselves involved with the ‘diets’ and ‘nutrition’ advertisements. I personally ignore these ads, because they sound so fake but perhaps that’s because I have a cultural cuisine I eat most of the time, which balances my healthy diet.
2. I wondered why people used rats for experiments often. I knew there were some similarity between us and rats, but I didn’t know quite what that was. The similarities grossed me out a bit, because it means that as long as there are lots of people living everywhere, there’s going to be mice and rats.
3. Human beings are weird when I think about it. Unlike most living species, we don’t have one specific food we eat, like grass and eucalyptus leaves. We have to think through our food choices the most, but at the same time these complicated traits has helped us be able to live almost anywhere in the world.
Monday, October 11, 2010
HW#8- Growing our own Food
Putting aside the fact that I spit out the sprouts the moment I put it in my mouth, I think it was a good experience regardless. Watering and watching my sprouts grow made me realize that this may be the only food where I know how its being grown. Before reading the Omnivore's Delimma, I did not know much about the process of how food is processed and sent to the markets for us to eat. Anything we eat can be deadly and unhealthy-for the exception of the foods we grow ourselves. Growing our own food is easier to say than done, (especially if we're living under a Capitalist nation) but it may be the only way to know if we're truly eating whats good for our bodies. The only reason why the process did not seem sacred, was because it seemed so tedius to water it every so often and it was more like homework to me. I consider the experience itself sacred though because I grew the plants naturally, but it just didn't feel that way-because we live in a society where we depend on the markets and the Capitalist system to get our food since it's so much easier.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
HW 7B
Chapter 6: The Consumer-A Republic of Fat
Précis: The true cause behind obesity lies in the fact that there is too much corn being produced. Abundance and cheapness simply leads people to eat more and get fat. Soft drink and fast-food companies took advantage of this mountain of corn by not only putting it in their products, but to also sell them in bigger portions so hungry customers do not feel like pigs when they order second servings. Food (corn) abundance leads to tragedy when the stored fat in our bodies are left for a famine that will never come.
Gems:
“And while the gene presents a useful adaptation in an environment of food scarcity and unpredictability, it’s a disaster in an environment of fast-food abundance, when the opportunity to feast presents itself 24/7.” -Page 106
“While the surgeon general is raising alarms over the epidemic of obesity, the president is signing farm bills designed to keep the river of corn flowing, guaranteeing that the cheapest calories in the supermarket will continue to be the unhealthiest.” -Page 108
Thoughts:
1. Does the government not care about the health problems within the people? Do you think the government would rethink about these bills if death rates (instead of obesity/sickness rates) started rising suddenly because of corn?
2. Would obese people be able to survive longer if there were to be a famine? (Since their bodies would be storing lots of fat).
3. Before reading this book, I never knew that corn was the main reason for obesity, especially because of the HFCS. (High fructose corn syrup). Would obese people be able to lose lots of wait if they avoid HFCS/corn?
Chapter 7: The Meal-Fast Food
Précis: On a McDonalds (fast food chain)’s menu most of the meals consist of corn: the McNugget has up to 13 ingredients derived from corn. Humans make huge sacrifices for corn, whether it is the farmers who grow lots of corn to get little money, or the consumers who eat these foods that can cause diseases like diabetes and obesity. People seem to continue to eat fast food because it seems like a comfort food, but usually we get regrettably full after a while.
Gems: “That perhaps is what the industrial food chain does best: obscure the histories of the foods it produces by processing them to such an extent that they appear as pure products of culture rather than nature-things made from plants and animals.” -Page 115
“Of all the species that have figured out how to thrive in a world dominated by Homo sapiens, surely no other has succeeded more spectacularly-has colonized more acres and bodies-than Zea mays, the grass that domesticated the domesticator. You have to wonder why we Americans don’t worship this plant as fervently as the Aztecs; like they once did, we make extraordinary sacrifices to it.” -Page 119
Thoughts:
1. It upsets me how the only ones who could really benefit from overproduction of corn is the ones involved with the business aspect-since they can make so much money. It’s cruel when looking at the hard work farmers go to, the mistreatment of the animals we eat, and the health problems that are brought to the consumers.
2. Is becoming a vegetarian the only way to avoid obesity and diabetes?
Chapter 8: All Flesh is Grass
Précis: Any farm depends on grass to feed on animals, even though many farmers are also involved with the complex system involving corn and distribution. Some farms actually have alternative ways to agriculture, like growing things in the natural way they should be grown, and having a variety of animals and plants. Even the word ‘organic’ has sub meanings according to the government because industrial organic farms also uses corn sprayed with chemicals.
Gems: “If I said I was organic, people would fuss at me for getting feed corn from a neighbor who might be using atrazine. Well, I would much use my money to keep my neighborhood productive and healthy than export my dollars five hundred miles away to get ‘pure products’ that’s really coated in diesel fuel.” -Page 132
“A great many animals, too, are drawn to grass, which partly accounts for our own deep attraction to it: We come here to eat the animals that are the grass that we (lacking rumens) can’t eat ourselves. “All flesh is grass.” -Page 127
Thoughts:
1. Do farmers (like Salatin) make more money than farmers who actually follow the government’s standards for agriculture?
2. What does the government exactly mean when they say ‘organic?’ Would it still be the same as any other farm that follows their regulations?
3. Why can’t all farms be like Salatins’?
Chapter 9: Big Organic
Précis:
Popular organic markets like whole foods use stories/words to make customers feel they are buying products that are safe and natural-when really animals fed in “organic farms” are not so different than any other industrial farm. There was a movement for ‘organic’ food, however the government ended up making the organic requirements very low, therefore leading to no dramatic changes toward food regulations. Pesticides and antibiotics are avoided; however animals (like chickens) are still in close quarters (despite the little door they can go through to a little lawn). Either way, it is difficult to make a simple conclusion as to whether “organic” foods can be considered “better” than those that are made conventionally.
Gems:
“As in so many other realms, nature’s logic has proven no match for the logic of capitalism, one in which cheap energy has always been a given. And so, today, the organic food industry finds itself in a most unexpected, uncomfortable, and, yes, unsustainable position: floating on a sinking sea of petroleum.” -Page 184
“Once that leap has been made, one input follows another, so that when the synthetic nitrogen fed to plants make them more attractive to insects and vulnerable to disease, as we have discovered, the farmer turns to chemical pesticides to fix his broken machine.” -Page 148
Thoughts:
1. I didn’t even know about the term ‘organic’ as much before, and assumed it was the healthiest thing out there-however it seems that it’s not that simple.
2. Any successful business thinks mainly about profit before health-I should have realized before reading the chapter that whole foods is under that same idea.
3. What does it mean to eat ‘good food?’
Chapter 10: Grass-Thirteen ways of looking at a pasture
Précis: Grass and sunlight is the source of the energy we as humans depend on, therefore we should obtain those nutrients by either eating vegetables or the animals that eat grass. However, farmers tend to turn to fossil fuels and petroleum because the whole process is so tedious and tiring. It is also because America’s civilization is strict on keeping things industrial and “cheap” even though cheap corn actually costs a lot when thinking about healthcare, welfare, and the environmental damages. The only rare farmer who does farming the most natural ways, are local farmers like the Saltin’s.
Gems:
“The ninety-nine cent price of a fast-food hamburger simply doesn’t take account of that meal’s true cost-to soil, oil, public health, the public nurse, etc., costs which are never charged directly to the consumer but, indirectly and invisibly, to the taxpayer (in the form of subsidies), the health care system (in the form of food-borne illnesses and obesity), and the environment (in the form of pollution), not to mention the welfare of the animals themselves.” -Page 201
“Grass farmers, who buy little in the way of pesticides and fertilizers (none, in the case of Joel Salatin), do little to support agribusiness or the pharmaceutical industry or big oil. A surplus of grass does nothing for a nation’s power or its balance of payments...”-Page 202
Thoughts:
1. It makes more sense to just have a biodiversity, natural farm like the Salatin family but sadly most people do not realize how absorbed and manipulated they are into America’s industrial food system.
2. Farmers who are uninvolved with the government’s agricultural regulations earn more money than most typical farmers who just grows unhealthy corn.
3. Can America ever change the whole industrial system so we can eat healthy again?
Précis: The true cause behind obesity lies in the fact that there is too much corn being produced. Abundance and cheapness simply leads people to eat more and get fat. Soft drink and fast-food companies took advantage of this mountain of corn by not only putting it in their products, but to also sell them in bigger portions so hungry customers do not feel like pigs when they order second servings. Food (corn) abundance leads to tragedy when the stored fat in our bodies are left for a famine that will never come.
Gems:
“And while the gene presents a useful adaptation in an environment of food scarcity and unpredictability, it’s a disaster in an environment of fast-food abundance, when the opportunity to feast presents itself 24/7.” -Page 106
“While the surgeon general is raising alarms over the epidemic of obesity, the president is signing farm bills designed to keep the river of corn flowing, guaranteeing that the cheapest calories in the supermarket will continue to be the unhealthiest.” -Page 108
Thoughts:
1. Does the government not care about the health problems within the people? Do you think the government would rethink about these bills if death rates (instead of obesity/sickness rates) started rising suddenly because of corn?
2. Would obese people be able to survive longer if there were to be a famine? (Since their bodies would be storing lots of fat).
3. Before reading this book, I never knew that corn was the main reason for obesity, especially because of the HFCS. (High fructose corn syrup). Would obese people be able to lose lots of wait if they avoid HFCS/corn?
Chapter 7: The Meal-Fast Food
Précis: On a McDonalds (fast food chain)’s menu most of the meals consist of corn: the McNugget has up to 13 ingredients derived from corn. Humans make huge sacrifices for corn, whether it is the farmers who grow lots of corn to get little money, or the consumers who eat these foods that can cause diseases like diabetes and obesity. People seem to continue to eat fast food because it seems like a comfort food, but usually we get regrettably full after a while.
Gems: “That perhaps is what the industrial food chain does best: obscure the histories of the foods it produces by processing them to such an extent that they appear as pure products of culture rather than nature-things made from plants and animals.” -Page 115
“Of all the species that have figured out how to thrive in a world dominated by Homo sapiens, surely no other has succeeded more spectacularly-has colonized more acres and bodies-than Zea mays, the grass that domesticated the domesticator. You have to wonder why we Americans don’t worship this plant as fervently as the Aztecs; like they once did, we make extraordinary sacrifices to it.” -Page 119
Thoughts:
1. It upsets me how the only ones who could really benefit from overproduction of corn is the ones involved with the business aspect-since they can make so much money. It’s cruel when looking at the hard work farmers go to, the mistreatment of the animals we eat, and the health problems that are brought to the consumers.
2. Is becoming a vegetarian the only way to avoid obesity and diabetes?
Chapter 8: All Flesh is Grass
Précis: Any farm depends on grass to feed on animals, even though many farmers are also involved with the complex system involving corn and distribution. Some farms actually have alternative ways to agriculture, like growing things in the natural way they should be grown, and having a variety of animals and plants. Even the word ‘organic’ has sub meanings according to the government because industrial organic farms also uses corn sprayed with chemicals.
Gems: “If I said I was organic, people would fuss at me for getting feed corn from a neighbor who might be using atrazine. Well, I would much use my money to keep my neighborhood productive and healthy than export my dollars five hundred miles away to get ‘pure products’ that’s really coated in diesel fuel.” -Page 132
“A great many animals, too, are drawn to grass, which partly accounts for our own deep attraction to it: We come here to eat the animals that are the grass that we (lacking rumens) can’t eat ourselves. “All flesh is grass.” -Page 127
Thoughts:
1. Do farmers (like Salatin) make more money than farmers who actually follow the government’s standards for agriculture?
2. What does the government exactly mean when they say ‘organic?’ Would it still be the same as any other farm that follows their regulations?
3. Why can’t all farms be like Salatins’?
Chapter 9: Big Organic
Précis:
Popular organic markets like whole foods use stories/words to make customers feel they are buying products that are safe and natural-when really animals fed in “organic farms” are not so different than any other industrial farm. There was a movement for ‘organic’ food, however the government ended up making the organic requirements very low, therefore leading to no dramatic changes toward food regulations. Pesticides and antibiotics are avoided; however animals (like chickens) are still in close quarters (despite the little door they can go through to a little lawn). Either way, it is difficult to make a simple conclusion as to whether “organic” foods can be considered “better” than those that are made conventionally.
Gems:
“As in so many other realms, nature’s logic has proven no match for the logic of capitalism, one in which cheap energy has always been a given. And so, today, the organic food industry finds itself in a most unexpected, uncomfortable, and, yes, unsustainable position: floating on a sinking sea of petroleum.” -Page 184
“Once that leap has been made, one input follows another, so that when the synthetic nitrogen fed to plants make them more attractive to insects and vulnerable to disease, as we have discovered, the farmer turns to chemical pesticides to fix his broken machine.” -Page 148
Thoughts:
1. I didn’t even know about the term ‘organic’ as much before, and assumed it was the healthiest thing out there-however it seems that it’s not that simple.
2. Any successful business thinks mainly about profit before health-I should have realized before reading the chapter that whole foods is under that same idea.
3. What does it mean to eat ‘good food?’
Chapter 10: Grass-Thirteen ways of looking at a pasture
Précis: Grass and sunlight is the source of the energy we as humans depend on, therefore we should obtain those nutrients by either eating vegetables or the animals that eat grass. However, farmers tend to turn to fossil fuels and petroleum because the whole process is so tedious and tiring. It is also because America’s civilization is strict on keeping things industrial and “cheap” even though cheap corn actually costs a lot when thinking about healthcare, welfare, and the environmental damages. The only rare farmer who does farming the most natural ways, are local farmers like the Saltin’s.
Gems:
“The ninety-nine cent price of a fast-food hamburger simply doesn’t take account of that meal’s true cost-to soil, oil, public health, the public nurse, etc., costs which are never charged directly to the consumer but, indirectly and invisibly, to the taxpayer (in the form of subsidies), the health care system (in the form of food-borne illnesses and obesity), and the environment (in the form of pollution), not to mention the welfare of the animals themselves.” -Page 201
“Grass farmers, who buy little in the way of pesticides and fertilizers (none, in the case of Joel Salatin), do little to support agribusiness or the pharmaceutical industry or big oil. A surplus of grass does nothing for a nation’s power or its balance of payments...”-Page 202
Thoughts:
1. It makes more sense to just have a biodiversity, natural farm like the Salatin family but sadly most people do not realize how absorbed and manipulated they are into America’s industrial food system.
2. Farmers who are uninvolved with the government’s agricultural regulations earn more money than most typical farmers who just grows unhealthy corn.
3. Can America ever change the whole industrial system so we can eat healthy again?
Monday, October 4, 2010
HW#7: Reading Response
The Omnivore's Delemna-A Natural History of Four Meals By: Michael Pollan
Chapter 1: The Plant-Corn's Conquest
Precis:
The marketplace seems as though there are many food biodiversity, but in actuality most of these food originates from the same thing: corn. Corn is an unique plant that makes an extra carbon compound than other plants, providing humans the second most common element in our bodies. Corn also reproduces in a complex way that humans has helped in by taking one corn's pollen and dusting it on the silk of another corn. Humans have heavily inpacted the traits of corn by their intervention in sex arrangements, and made corn adaptable to their climate.
Gems:
"without the "fruitfulness" of Indian corn, the nineteenth-century English writer William Cobbett declared, the colonists would never have been able to build "a powerful nation."-page 26
"Mexicans today consume a far more varied carbon diet: the animals they eat still eat grass; much of their protein comes from legumesl and they still sweeten their beverages with cane sugar. So that's us: processed corn, walking."-page 23
Thoughts:
1. What is NOT made out of corn? On page 19, the author says that more than a quarter of marketplace goods has corn in them...what's the three-fourths of the items?
2. Why is it that most people in today's society do not even seem to care where our food comes from?
3. Is the reason for high obesity rates today have a connection with these corn?
Chapter 2: The Farm
Precis:
Agriculture has changed so much over time: at first farmers in Iowa grew a variety of plants and animals, but now farmers have no choice but to grow corn for American Capitalism. Most farmers today are broke because everyone thought about planting the popular corn by government policies, except overproduction lead to a decline in prices. Also, ammonia nitrate (which was used in explosives during WWII)-is now used as fertilizer as an excellent source of nitrogen for plants. Corn produces itself very easily, so places like Churdan are like ghost towns with no sign of people.
Gems:
"In corn's case, humans have labored mightily to free it from either constraint, even if that means going broke growing it, and consuming it just as fast as we possibly can." -page 56
"A farm family needs a certain amount of cash flow every year to support itself, and if the price of corn falls, the only way to stay even is to sell more corn....Yet the more bushels each farmer produces, the lower prices go, giving another turn to the perverse spiral of overproduction." -page 54
Thoughts:
1. Why can't farmers just revolt against the government? My mother made a remark that in Japan, farmers are free to grow whatever they want and can make a fair living-there are even rich farmers for planting rare plants and food.
2. Why does it seem as though in today's society-people really don't care about the issues surrounding them unless the gov't or professional says its a huge problem?
3. What would happen if lots farmers decide to quit and find other jobs?
Chapter 3: The Elevator
Precis:
Million leftovers of corn gets piled up in grain elevators, then dumped in a railroad car. Many types of corn is piled together in this mess, where quantity is valued more than quantity. Farmers are used in a system where the only way to earn a living is to produce more corn-which leads to even more of a decrease in prices. Even previous farm animals are fed corn for their meals.
Gems:
"What is much harder to see is that all this corn is also the product of government policies, which have done more than anything else to raise that mountain and shrink the prices of each bushel in it." -page 61
"Both companies declined to let me follow the corn river as it passes through their elevators, pipes, vats, tankers, freighters, feed-lots, mills and labratories on its complex and increasingly obscure path to our bodies." -Page 64
Thoughts:
1. It is ironic that companies that are involved in these corn productions (Cargill) do not let people learn the process of how our food is processed due to "food security." Dosn't this mean that the process of our foods is extremely unhealthy?
2. It was surprising that previous farm animals are now gathered and fed corn-a diet that is unnatural for them. Isn't this a major cause of animals getting sick?
3. How would things change if corn just stopped growing?
Chapter 4: The Feedlot-Making Meat (54,000 Kernels)
Précis:
CAFO’s converted America’s river of corn into feed-lots for gathered animals, (which causes several health/environmental problems) all because of the mountain of corn and their cheap calories. Cows were very healthy for being able to digest the grass we can’t into high protein-the only reason their diet changed was because eating grass took too long to reach slaughtering weight and to increase the protein in corn. Cows suffer from the unnatural diet of corn and the dirty environment of feed-lots.
Gems: “You are what you eat” is a truism hard to argue with, and yet it is, as a visit to a feedlot suggests, incomplete, for you are what what you eat eats, too. And what we are, or have become, is not just meat but number 2 corn and oil.”-page 84
But the use of antibiotics in feedlot cattle confounds this distinction. Here the drugs are plainly being used to treat sick animals, yet the animals probably wouldn’t be sick if not for the diet of grain we feed them.” -page 79
Thoughts:
1. I felt disgusted at the thought of these mistreatments towards cattle/cows, all for the purpose of profit and “efficiency.” Why can’t this be considered animal cruelty?
2. The sad reality is that even after reading where the food I eat comes from, I would still continue to eat the food that came from corn sprayed with fossil fuels and cows that aren’t supposed to be eating corn.
3. What is safe to eat then? Don’t humans need protein and some amount of starch?
Chapter 5: The Processing Plant-Making Complex Foods (18,000 Kernels)
Précis:
The corn that isn’t fed to the poor feed-lot animals are taken to “wet mills,” which breaks down corn in multiple parts to create infinite products science has figured to do. Corn has helped liberate ourselves from the restrictions and limitations of nature. Food industries are continuing to get people to buy or eat more corn by using cheap corn to create complicated food systems. Corn has helped industrialize what we eat.
Gems:
“When fake sugars and fake fats are joined by fake starches, the food industry will at long last have overcome the dilemma of a fixed stomach: whole meals you can eat as often or as much as you like, since this food will leave no trace. Meet the ultimate-utterly fantastic!-industrial eater.” -Page 99
“One of the truly odd things about the 10 billion bushels of corn harvested each year is how little of it we eat.” -page 85
“The primary difference between the industrial digestion of a corn and an animal’s is that in this case there is virtually no waste at the end of it.” -Page 90
Thoughts:
1. It’s disgusting to even imagine how corn is in almost everything we eat just because there are mountains of it and their price is so cheap.
2. Corn has ruined the flow of nature, because corn itself has made people dependent and greedy for this plant.
3. Is the government regulating these corn uses so that people can get sick?
Chapter 1: The Plant-Corn's Conquest
Precis:
The marketplace seems as though there are many food biodiversity, but in actuality most of these food originates from the same thing: corn. Corn is an unique plant that makes an extra carbon compound than other plants, providing humans the second most common element in our bodies. Corn also reproduces in a complex way that humans has helped in by taking one corn's pollen and dusting it on the silk of another corn. Humans have heavily inpacted the traits of corn by their intervention in sex arrangements, and made corn adaptable to their climate.
Gems:
"without the "fruitfulness" of Indian corn, the nineteenth-century English writer William Cobbett declared, the colonists would never have been able to build "a powerful nation."-page 26
"Mexicans today consume a far more varied carbon diet: the animals they eat still eat grass; much of their protein comes from legumesl and they still sweeten their beverages with cane sugar. So that's us: processed corn, walking."-page 23
Thoughts:
1. What is NOT made out of corn? On page 19, the author says that more than a quarter of marketplace goods has corn in them...what's the three-fourths of the items?
2. Why is it that most people in today's society do not even seem to care where our food comes from?
3. Is the reason for high obesity rates today have a connection with these corn?
Chapter 2: The Farm
Precis:
Agriculture has changed so much over time: at first farmers in Iowa grew a variety of plants and animals, but now farmers have no choice but to grow corn for American Capitalism. Most farmers today are broke because everyone thought about planting the popular corn by government policies, except overproduction lead to a decline in prices. Also, ammonia nitrate (which was used in explosives during WWII)-is now used as fertilizer as an excellent source of nitrogen for plants. Corn produces itself very easily, so places like Churdan are like ghost towns with no sign of people.
Gems:
"In corn's case, humans have labored mightily to free it from either constraint, even if that means going broke growing it, and consuming it just as fast as we possibly can." -page 56
"A farm family needs a certain amount of cash flow every year to support itself, and if the price of corn falls, the only way to stay even is to sell more corn....Yet the more bushels each farmer produces, the lower prices go, giving another turn to the perverse spiral of overproduction." -page 54
Thoughts:
1. Why can't farmers just revolt against the government? My mother made a remark that in Japan, farmers are free to grow whatever they want and can make a fair living-there are even rich farmers for planting rare plants and food.
2. Why does it seem as though in today's society-people really don't care about the issues surrounding them unless the gov't or professional says its a huge problem?
3. What would happen if lots farmers decide to quit and find other jobs?
Chapter 3: The Elevator
Precis:
Million leftovers of corn gets piled up in grain elevators, then dumped in a railroad car. Many types of corn is piled together in this mess, where quantity is valued more than quantity. Farmers are used in a system where the only way to earn a living is to produce more corn-which leads to even more of a decrease in prices. Even previous farm animals are fed corn for their meals.
Gems:
"What is much harder to see is that all this corn is also the product of government policies, which have done more than anything else to raise that mountain and shrink the prices of each bushel in it." -page 61
"Both companies declined to let me follow the corn river as it passes through their elevators, pipes, vats, tankers, freighters, feed-lots, mills and labratories on its complex and increasingly obscure path to our bodies." -Page 64
Thoughts:
1. It is ironic that companies that are involved in these corn productions (Cargill) do not let people learn the process of how our food is processed due to "food security." Dosn't this mean that the process of our foods is extremely unhealthy?
2. It was surprising that previous farm animals are now gathered and fed corn-a diet that is unnatural for them. Isn't this a major cause of animals getting sick?
3. How would things change if corn just stopped growing?
Chapter 4: The Feedlot-Making Meat (54,000 Kernels)
Précis:
CAFO’s converted America’s river of corn into feed-lots for gathered animals, (which causes several health/environmental problems) all because of the mountain of corn and their cheap calories. Cows were very healthy for being able to digest the grass we can’t into high protein-the only reason their diet changed was because eating grass took too long to reach slaughtering weight and to increase the protein in corn. Cows suffer from the unnatural diet of corn and the dirty environment of feed-lots.
Gems: “You are what you eat” is a truism hard to argue with, and yet it is, as a visit to a feedlot suggests, incomplete, for you are what what you eat eats, too. And what we are, or have become, is not just meat but number 2 corn and oil.”-page 84
But the use of antibiotics in feedlot cattle confounds this distinction. Here the drugs are plainly being used to treat sick animals, yet the animals probably wouldn’t be sick if not for the diet of grain we feed them.” -page 79
Thoughts:
1. I felt disgusted at the thought of these mistreatments towards cattle/cows, all for the purpose of profit and “efficiency.” Why can’t this be considered animal cruelty?
2. The sad reality is that even after reading where the food I eat comes from, I would still continue to eat the food that came from corn sprayed with fossil fuels and cows that aren’t supposed to be eating corn.
3. What is safe to eat then? Don’t humans need protein and some amount of starch?
Chapter 5: The Processing Plant-Making Complex Foods (18,000 Kernels)
Précis:
The corn that isn’t fed to the poor feed-lot animals are taken to “wet mills,” which breaks down corn in multiple parts to create infinite products science has figured to do. Corn has helped liberate ourselves from the restrictions and limitations of nature. Food industries are continuing to get people to buy or eat more corn by using cheap corn to create complicated food systems. Corn has helped industrialize what we eat.
Gems:
“When fake sugars and fake fats are joined by fake starches, the food industry will at long last have overcome the dilemma of a fixed stomach: whole meals you can eat as often or as much as you like, since this food will leave no trace. Meet the ultimate-utterly fantastic!-industrial eater.” -Page 99
“One of the truly odd things about the 10 billion bushels of corn harvested each year is how little of it we eat.” -page 85
“The primary difference between the industrial digestion of a corn and an animal’s is that in this case there is virtually no waste at the end of it.” -Page 90
Thoughts:
1. It’s disgusting to even imagine how corn is in almost everything we eat just because there are mountains of it and their price is so cheap.
2. Corn has ruined the flow of nature, because corn itself has made people dependent and greedy for this plant.
3. Is the government regulating these corn uses so that people can get sick?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
HW#6: Food Diary
I didn't take photos for Tuesday, September 28th, but I plan to do so for tomorrow's meals. For lunch I ate a slice of pizza from Bravo's. For dinner I ate pickled cucumbers with chinese cabbage, curry flavored fried rice, sauteed white eggplants with sauce, and gumbo soup with shrimp. I tried calculating the general calories for the day using one of the websites: 1,268.21 calories. For my age and body structure (weight and height) 1377 Calories/day was the typical amount of calorie intake.
(http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm) I guess I was a little under the amount of calories intake I should be having.
Wednesday, September 29 lunch: Leftover curry flavored fried rice.
Wednesday, September 29, dinner meal:
last night's leftovers and sauteed potatoes with seasoning.
For september 29 meals, my calories ended up being about 1,472.165 calories. This is a little above the average intake I should be having, which just shows that the amount of calories I intake varies from day to day.
For this particular day, I ate leftovers from last night. The rice was very soft and I like the smell of curry. The gumbo soup was something my mom bought to make something quick, so it tasted stronger than the other foods on the dinner table. My mother's home cooked meals have a certain taste I love, but it isn't necessarily too salty or strong in taste. (That's probably why I usually never get tired of her meals). I love cucumbers, I like the crunchy sounds it makes when I bite into it. The eggplants were very wet and soft, since I like it a bit overcooked in a way. The potatoes were very soft and cut into bitable pieces.
Analysis:
Looking at the food I ate over these two days, I have realized that I eat more healthier than I thought. I'm only a few calories over or below the amount I should intake. I think its because my mother cares about our health and the nutrients we take in. Also, when I was looking up the calories, I had to just choose general foods since obviously these sites would not have Japanese cuisine or specific meals listed. I think its important to log how many calories we intake like this assignment, and check in once in a while if we are eating "healthy enough." But, I also think people should not over stress about what they eat, because enjoying the food we eat is a positive thing in itself-as long as we don't eat too unhealthy our health will be fine.
In these two days, I enjoyed eating last night's dinner the most. Like usual, my mom cooked a little bit of everything to be both healthy and delicious at the same time. She always cooks what I enjoy, whether it be soup, rice, or potatoes. I think I also enjoy my dinner meals most because I know my mother puts a lot of effort in her meals and that makes me very thankful for her cooking. I enjoy lunch, but for different reasons-its only because I'm eating with friends I love and enjoy being with. The food itself is usually pizza or deli food, and can get boring for a set period of time. That's why lately I decide to take leftovers from dinner for lunch, because I really do love my mother's cooking.
In general, I do feel good about the food I eat. I don't stress myself or think about "eating healthy" and I'm simply just enjoying the taste of everything I eat. For dinner, I don't necessarily choose what to eat-I leave that to my mother. For lunch, when I don't bring home lunch, I just go along with what my friends want to eat, or where they want to go. I don't consider myself a very picky person, so I'm cool with whatever food as long as we don't eat the same foods so many times in a row.
(http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm) I guess I was a little under the amount of calories intake I should be having.
Wednesday, September 29 lunch: Leftover curry flavored fried rice.
Wednesday, September 29, dinner meal:
last night's leftovers and sauteed potatoes with seasoning.
For september 29 meals, my calories ended up being about 1,472.165 calories. This is a little above the average intake I should be having, which just shows that the amount of calories I intake varies from day to day.
For this particular day, I ate leftovers from last night. The rice was very soft and I like the smell of curry. The gumbo soup was something my mom bought to make something quick, so it tasted stronger than the other foods on the dinner table. My mother's home cooked meals have a certain taste I love, but it isn't necessarily too salty or strong in taste. (That's probably why I usually never get tired of her meals). I love cucumbers, I like the crunchy sounds it makes when I bite into it. The eggplants were very wet and soft, since I like it a bit overcooked in a way. The potatoes were very soft and cut into bitable pieces.
Analysis:
Looking at the food I ate over these two days, I have realized that I eat more healthier than I thought. I'm only a few calories over or below the amount I should intake. I think its because my mother cares about our health and the nutrients we take in. Also, when I was looking up the calories, I had to just choose general foods since obviously these sites would not have Japanese cuisine or specific meals listed. I think its important to log how many calories we intake like this assignment, and check in once in a while if we are eating "healthy enough." But, I also think people should not over stress about what they eat, because enjoying the food we eat is a positive thing in itself-as long as we don't eat too unhealthy our health will be fine.
In these two days, I enjoyed eating last night's dinner the most. Like usual, my mom cooked a little bit of everything to be both healthy and delicious at the same time. She always cooks what I enjoy, whether it be soup, rice, or potatoes. I think I also enjoy my dinner meals most because I know my mother puts a lot of effort in her meals and that makes me very thankful for her cooking. I enjoy lunch, but for different reasons-its only because I'm eating with friends I love and enjoy being with. The food itself is usually pizza or deli food, and can get boring for a set period of time. That's why lately I decide to take leftovers from dinner for lunch, because I really do love my mother's cooking.
In general, I do feel good about the food I eat. I don't stress myself or think about "eating healthy" and I'm simply just enjoying the taste of everything I eat. For dinner, I don't necessarily choose what to eat-I leave that to my mother. For lunch, when I don't bring home lunch, I just go along with what my friends want to eat, or where they want to go. I don't consider myself a very picky person, so I'm cool with whatever food as long as we don't eat the same foods so many times in a row.
Monday, September 27, 2010
HW 5: Dominant Discourses Regarding Contemporary Foodways in the U.S.
In class, we discusssed dominant discourses on food. We spoke about the two major discourses: food as poison, and food as medicine. The most frequent discussions revolved around eating healthy and loosing weight. The media and health professionals are the two main participants within this discourse. Dominant discourse is a debate or talk in society about a sepcific topic. I also thought it was an 'assumed' idea, not only because of the boundaries of discourses discussed in class, but also because of a specific part of Fouault's definition from one of the links: "Discourses tend to be invisible--taken for granted as part of the fabric of reality." (Link D) I googled 'food,' and the first site that came up was about eating healthy. This already reflects the dominant discourse of food as a medicine and health.
I found an article that grabbed my attention on CNN.com: "The Superfoods you need now." This article was completely within the dominant discourse of food as a medicine. It wrote what I expected: what to eat to be healthy. And, like expected, the only people quoted were people who were experts in this area like: "Elizabeth Somer, R.D., author of "Eat Your Way to Happiness," and "Frances Largeman-Roth, R.D., Health's Senior Food and Nutrition Editor and author of "Feed the Belly." These people wrote recommendations about what to eat basically to stay healthy. The aritcle mentioned, "Yet according to government research, more than half of women in their 20s get less than the 1,000mg of calcium they need daily to do that." (The superfood you need) This articles (like any other health article) then wrote specific ways to solve these problems. But, what certain readers would not realize is that the voice of the actual eaters are not quoted at all. Certain readers wouldn't realize that this article pushes people to eat a certain way, but changing one's diet is not an easy thing.
Below is the link to the article I found these quotes from:
(http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/24/health.superfoods.you.need/index.html?npt=NP1)
Honestly, I don't think people really think of food as a type of 'reform.' I also didn't think much of the idea, until it was discussed in class. It seems as though most people do not recognize the dominant discourses about food because its not an idea most people think about deeply. Most people are brainwashed without realizing the dominant discourse of food as either poison or medicine. When I think of reform, I think about fighting for equality and rights...not about food. I think the writers of these articles notices the alarming obesity rates and the health problems people face because of their diets, but don't consider the whole 'we need to eat more healthier' idea as a reform. Some articles even mention that people cannot control others about their food decisions, so the obesity crisis is unstoppable. I also agree with those ideas, because changing people's diets aren't an easy thing to do, and the government definitly does not have the right to take away certain foods just because they are unhealthy. News and the media just state we are in a 'food crisis' but there's no real movement toward improving it-and I agree. I think it is just a potential reform, that will never make much change because people do not take it as seriously as the news and health professionals say.
I am unsure, but I guess a person whose ideas gets shaped by "mass-media-propagated dominant discourse," would be moved by the health articles about diets and eating organic foods. I'd imagine this person would go to organic restaurants or whole foods to eat their meals. This person may end up getting wrapped up in this whole idea of 'eating healthy' and force themselves to avoid anything considered 'unhealthy.' (Examples would be McDonalds and other fast food places.)
I found an article that grabbed my attention on CNN.com: "The Superfoods you need now." This article was completely within the dominant discourse of food as a medicine. It wrote what I expected: what to eat to be healthy. And, like expected, the only people quoted were people who were experts in this area like: "Elizabeth Somer, R.D., author of "Eat Your Way to Happiness," and "Frances Largeman-Roth, R.D., Health's Senior Food and Nutrition Editor and author of "Feed the Belly." These people wrote recommendations about what to eat basically to stay healthy. The aritcle mentioned, "Yet according to government research, more than half of women in their 20s get less than the 1,000mg of calcium they need daily to do that." (The superfood you need) This articles (like any other health article) then wrote specific ways to solve these problems. But, what certain readers would not realize is that the voice of the actual eaters are not quoted at all. Certain readers wouldn't realize that this article pushes people to eat a certain way, but changing one's diet is not an easy thing.
Below is the link to the article I found these quotes from:
(http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/24/health.superfoods.you.need/index.html?npt=NP1)
Honestly, I don't think people really think of food as a type of 'reform.' I also didn't think much of the idea, until it was discussed in class. It seems as though most people do not recognize the dominant discourses about food because its not an idea most people think about deeply. Most people are brainwashed without realizing the dominant discourse of food as either poison or medicine. When I think of reform, I think about fighting for equality and rights...not about food. I think the writers of these articles notices the alarming obesity rates and the health problems people face because of their diets, but don't consider the whole 'we need to eat more healthier' idea as a reform. Some articles even mention that people cannot control others about their food decisions, so the obesity crisis is unstoppable. I also agree with those ideas, because changing people's diets aren't an easy thing to do, and the government definitly does not have the right to take away certain foods just because they are unhealthy. News and the media just state we are in a 'food crisis' but there's no real movement toward improving it-and I agree. I think it is just a potential reform, that will never make much change because people do not take it as seriously as the news and health professionals say.
I am unsure, but I guess a person whose ideas gets shaped by "mass-media-propagated dominant discourse," would be moved by the health articles about diets and eating organic foods. I'd imagine this person would go to organic restaurants or whole foods to eat their meals. This person may end up getting wrapped up in this whole idea of 'eating healthy' and force themselves to avoid anything considered 'unhealthy.' (Examples would be McDonalds and other fast food places.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)