There exists a generation in America who has not seen a man on the Moon. The Apollo program exists to anyone younger than thirty years simply as history, as if those born in the final quarter of the 20th century have only known the dying echo of that which once was a thunderous roar. Of the many reasons NASA abandoned the Apollo program in the mid-1970s was a lack of public interest. For those who can only faintly recall a time without computers, a national space program consists of varied probes, satellites, and telescope images, of which the public as a whole is only temporarily aware, if at all interested.
As a member of “Generation Y,” Americans born in the 1980s and 1990s, I have been very fortunate to enjoy the fruits of our nation’s boisterous economic success — particularly in the previous decade — for much of my life. Indeed, many Americans of all walks of life, as well as millions beyond our shores, have benefited from the American scientific and technological innovations of the late 20th century.
These great leaps over the previous half-century are doubtlessly attributed to the “Sputnik Generation,” who came of adult age beginning in the 1970s. At the height of the Cold War, the federal government—not to be outdone by Soviet achievements— heavily invested in both basic research as well as science education. These investments later manifested themselves primarily in (1) the American victory in the “Race to the Moon” (which subsequently produced much-needed computer miniaturization and empowerment), as well as (2) a generation of Americans whose enthusiasm and training in science and technology fostered characteristic American innovation, invention and discovery, pushing the bounds of both our civilization’s knowledge and ability.
However, in recent years the United States’ governmental and public interest in the sciences has waned. Although a definitive point when the Cold War-fueled interest in sciences began to lose momentum is difficult to ascertain, some of the largest blows to the American scientific community have occurred since the dismantling of the congressional Office of Technology Assessment in 1995. Moreover, science has suffered greatly over the past eight years, particularly in the form of a dearth in funding for basic research and science education. Indeed, this can be easily shown by a plateauing for NSF and DOE funding (only DOD and NASA saw an increase) in recent years, as well as dropping test scores in science and mathematics.
Indeed, with the current state of American science and science education, the republic finds itself at a precipitating crisis; given the rapid investment in these fields by rising 21st century powers, such as China and India, America’s cultural, political, and economic standing for future generations is in jeopardy. The global centers of learning have begun to shift away from our shores—such an example is the Large Hadron Collider in Europe, which will provide groundwork for the next step in physics, was originally planned to be built in Waxahachie, Texas over ten years ago until this plan was abandoned by lawmakers. While a generation ago, NASA was a sparkling source of pride for all Americans; the space agency today is regarded on the whole with ambivalence, if not ridicule. The United States must lead again.
To use history as a guide, one may draw parallels with a nation’s investment in science and technology with later economic and political success. This pattern begins to emerge in antiquity among the Greeks and later Romans; and is followed in world history through the Enlightenment in British advances in the physical sciences seeding global dominance in the 19th century. Indeed, this is continued in the American story through scientific and technological investment the early- to mid-20th century to today’s unparalleled achievement at the dawn of the millennium.
Of a nation borne of Enlightenment principles, the very idea United States rests upon an informed citizenry. It is only the knowledgeable citizen who will question authority, it is only the conversant citizen to will hold their leaders accountable, it is only the well-informed citizen who will consider the impact of their vote, their purchase, and their very life. America deserves no less than an enlightened community of informed, active citizens.
In the coming decades, the must be a renewal. To re-present science to the population is no small undertaking, yet as a people, Americans are defined by their incredible capacity to be at their best in the worst of times. This revolution of thought will require enormous resources, time, and investment in an incredibly American channel of discussion: public education. American students routinely rank far behind those of other developed nations, and with a slipshod, piecemeal approach to invigorating American schools; these rankings are bound only to slide further. Yet, in a time of an educational nadir, Americans do have the mountain-moving capacity to launch a New Deal for schools, an Apollo program for learning. This is our strength, and we will show that a strong America will be built through strong schools.
Our leaders must be pressed as to how they will show their support for basic research. American science will push the bounds of our collective knowledge and show the world new horizons. Today, many scholars from abroad are being drawn back to their homelands, and bringing their vital American-acquired talents and knowledge away with them—let us build an America where study and exploration are held to the highest standards of public discourse and admiration.
As the world seeks to define itself in the twenty-first century, challenges appear to all mankind which were unimaginable a generation before—an ever-shrinking world through globalization and the Internet, the hegemony of a single superpower, economies as entropic as the weather, and spectre global climate change. Our nation must hold a leadership role in solving some of the most complex and severe problems in human history. This task requires no less than the enlightened republic which the Founders hoped it would be.
This year, we find ourselves in an opportune moment to take our nation where it must be. During this presidential election, the advocacy of science in the American psyche can hold a unique place to be able to spread its message to the voters as well as the candidates. Should science be pushed into the top priorities of the next president, America will have the leader it needs to inspire a new generation. Nearly a half-century ago, President Kennedy asked Americans to go to the Moon; this feat was not only accomplished by the Herculean advances of NASA, laboratories, and in the bravery of the pioneering pilots, but also in the enthusiastic backing and will of the American people, who dutifully and excitedly watched the liftoff of every spacecraft. We, as a people, are capable of so many things…. Americans need only to be challenged.
25 April, 2008
07 April, 2008
Posting because I feel like I should this evening, without all that much to say right now.
Only thing really on my mind lately is the fact that Meg and I are looking into buying a house. The whole process is awfully bewildering and unreal. It would be easy to assume that I'm doing the immature thing and am just afraid of growing up (which I did, in fact, battle with last year). It's more the idea of purchasing something with a price tag of a quarter-million dollars. In particular, with the horror stories of the foreclosure market (let's just call it that already), it's unnerving.
Hopefully they'll be more later
Only thing really on my mind lately is the fact that Meg and I are looking into buying a house. The whole process is awfully bewildering and unreal. It would be easy to assume that I'm doing the immature thing and am just afraid of growing up (which I did, in fact, battle with last year). It's more the idea of purchasing something with a price tag of a quarter-million dollars. In particular, with the horror stories of the foreclosure market (let's just call it that already), it's unnerving.
Hopefully they'll be more later
05 April, 2008
31 March, 2008
If evil has a flavor, it must taste like Robitussin.
So today was the first actual, realistic sick day I've had in a while. In light of the first week-long sickness I've had in a long time, I appreciate "mental health days" all the more. However, you can never shake that feeling that when you're home alone doing nothing, that you're just wasting time. Well, not wasted, I watched Snakes on a Plane, which is an oh-my-goodness terrible movie in the MST3K tradition. I strongly recommend that you watch this, as the people who made it were absolutely serious about this half-baked idea of a film.
On a sidebar, if you happen to see my wife, please inform her that she is an absolutely wonderful and selfless woman. Meg -- despite her own full plate-- has been doing a fantastic job of taking care of me these last few days and I owe her everything.
If I think of more to say, I might add some later, but I can say that the usual philosophy is absent today.
So today was the first actual, realistic sick day I've had in a while. In light of the first week-long sickness I've had in a long time, I appreciate "mental health days" all the more. However, you can never shake that feeling that when you're home alone doing nothing, that you're just wasting time. Well, not wasted, I watched Snakes on a Plane, which is an oh-my-goodness terrible movie in the MST3K tradition. I strongly recommend that you watch this, as the people who made it were absolutely serious about this half-baked idea of a film.
On a sidebar, if you happen to see my wife, please inform her that she is an absolutely wonderful and selfless woman. Meg -- despite her own full plate-- has been doing a fantastic job of taking care of me these last few days and I owe her everything.
If I think of more to say, I might add some later, but I can say that the usual philosophy is absent today.
25 March, 2008
Linux is always an adventure. My iBook is starting to show it's age and I had to bring it in for physical repairs
(on day 1,050 out of 1095 of the warranty), so I'm using my 2001 college desktop-now-frankenstein-Linux machine.
What I love about getting "up to your elbows" in a computer's workings is how a simple measure can delightfully exponentiate into ridiculousness. "Oh, the clock is off by 7 minutes" turned into "why doesn't java work?" turned into rooting around in root to figure out how to get it right... long story short, in what should have been a 10-second adjustment (checking time.gov and resetting the clock) turned into a 20-minute exploration of getting stuff to work in Ubuntu. Rarely do I ever turn off this machine without having felt that I learned something about Unix.
A bit busy today (with god knows what....) I hope that I'll update on this soon!
PS-- while I look for a new laptop, does anyone have any suggestions?
(on day 1,050 out of 1095 of the warranty), so I'm using my 2001 college desktop-now-frankenstein-Linux machine.
What I love about getting "up to your elbows" in a computer's workings is how a simple measure can delightfully exponentiate into ridiculousness. "Oh, the clock is off by 7 minutes" turned into "why doesn't java work?" turned into rooting around in root to figure out how to get it right... long story short, in what should have been a 10-second adjustment (checking time.gov and resetting the clock) turned into a 20-minute exploration of getting stuff to work in Ubuntu. Rarely do I ever turn off this machine without having felt that I learned something about Unix.
A bit busy today (with god knows what....) I hope that I'll update on this soon!
PS-- while I look for a new laptop, does anyone have any suggestions?
20 March, 2008
The Third Estate
So Facebook has recently changed their "political views" tag. It used to be that you had a choice of "Conservative", "Moderate" and "Liberal", whereas now, it's an empty slot to fill-in whatever. I like this because rarely do some other group's political/economic ideals adequately reflect what I believe. So I put in "libertarian progressive"
Progressive is a term that I doubt would surprise anyone, and I use the qualifier libertarian for the government-should-stay-out-of-my-business ethos which is planted deep in my upstate New York roots. This idea of Left-Right orientation on the political spectrum works well for most purposes, but one should remember that to properly describe one's views in relation to another's this is best done on a two-dimensional axis of social views vs. economic views. A pure libertarian, for instance, would hold for the social freedoms of a "progressive" and the economic freedoms of a "conservative", whereas a pure republican would have high scores in the conservative direction on both axes. So this presents our problems with a one-dimensional left-right relationship.
Friends and I once mathematically described this geometry of politics, which would serve as excellent fodder for a future post, and if I remember, you will see that someday.
Yet the idea of the classical definition of a "libertarian" annoys me. I do, in fact, consider myself one, but on the aforementioned chart, I rank strongly for social freedoms, yet economic restrictiveness. It's my belief that the current definition allows for the freedom of people and their enterprise (business), yet in a world where business has free reign, can a population be free as well?
This is an unfortunate issue which I do not believe I have heard/read anyone speak about-- what is the proper place of business in society? Only an anarchist/communist/fool would say that it is entirely unnecessary, but none of us are blind to the gross abuse of power when too much is alloted to businesses. The view from my perspective is that the major groupings in a modern society break down as: The People, The Government, and The Business. You cannot mix these. Much in the way medieval Europe had the organization of "Estates of the Realm" (Nobility, Church, People), in the proper functionality of the 21st century, there must be a balance struck between each branch.
Until I do further study into the topic area, I'm uncertain as to how much I can say about the topic, however, in the current view of "freedom," each of the three estates must have enough to counter an overabundance of power in any one.
Throughout history, there has always been the ruling elite-- behind or in front of the scences. In antiquity through the middle ages, this was seen in the clergy, as the church/gods/priests had ultimate power, knowledge and wisdom. Through the Renaissance to the 20th century, power rested nicely (and unnicely) in the hands of monarchs, empires and a scattering fo republics. This power structure still exists in many parts of the world. Today it is the moneymakers, entrepreneurs, and capitalists who effectively move ideas and people and power in much of our world.
Business exists for the service of people and the people's collective (government), and must seek to remain an intricate, efficient, noble part of day-to-day life, but too many tend to think of it as the system rather than a part of it.
Must be tired. I notice that complete thoughts aren't happening as clearly as they should be. Perhaps I'll continue this rant later.
Thoughts?
So Facebook has recently changed their "political views" tag. It used to be that you had a choice of "Conservative", "Moderate" and "Liberal", whereas now, it's an empty slot to fill-in whatever. I like this because rarely do some other group's political/economic ideals adequately reflect what I believe. So I put in "libertarian progressive"
Progressive is a term that I doubt would surprise anyone, and I use the qualifier libertarian for the government-should-stay-out-of-my-business ethos which is planted deep in my upstate New York roots. This idea of Left-Right orientation on the political spectrum works well for most purposes, but one should remember that to properly describe one's views in relation to another's this is best done on a two-dimensional axis of social views vs. economic views. A pure libertarian, for instance, would hold for the social freedoms of a "progressive" and the economic freedoms of a "conservative", whereas a pure republican would have high scores in the conservative direction on both axes. So this presents our problems with a one-dimensional left-right relationship.
Friends and I once mathematically described this geometry of politics, which would serve as excellent fodder for a future post, and if I remember, you will see that someday.
Yet the idea of the classical definition of a "libertarian" annoys me. I do, in fact, consider myself one, but on the aforementioned chart, I rank strongly for social freedoms, yet economic restrictiveness. It's my belief that the current definition allows for the freedom of people and their enterprise (business), yet in a world where business has free reign, can a population be free as well?
This is an unfortunate issue which I do not believe I have heard/read anyone speak about-- what is the proper place of business in society? Only an anarchist/communist/fool would say that it is entirely unnecessary, but none of us are blind to the gross abuse of power when too much is alloted to businesses. The view from my perspective is that the major groupings in a modern society break down as: The People, The Government, and The Business. You cannot mix these. Much in the way medieval Europe had the organization of "Estates of the Realm" (Nobility, Church, People), in the proper functionality of the 21st century, there must be a balance struck between each branch.
Until I do further study into the topic area, I'm uncertain as to how much I can say about the topic, however, in the current view of "freedom," each of the three estates must have enough to counter an overabundance of power in any one.
Throughout history, there has always been the ruling elite-- behind or in front of the scences. In antiquity through the middle ages, this was seen in the clergy, as the church/gods/priests had ultimate power, knowledge and wisdom. Through the Renaissance to the 20th century, power rested nicely (and unnicely) in the hands of monarchs, empires and a scattering fo republics. This power structure still exists in many parts of the world. Today it is the moneymakers, entrepreneurs, and capitalists who effectively move ideas and people and power in much of our world.
Business exists for the service of people and the people's collective (government), and must seek to remain an intricate, efficient, noble part of day-to-day life, but too many tend to think of it as the system rather than a part of it.
Must be tired. I notice that complete thoughts aren't happening as clearly as they should be. Perhaps I'll continue this rant later.
Thoughts?
18 March, 2008
06 March, 2008
I am far too entertained when watching my cat do something stupid. Honestly. I just spent about five minutes observing him smack a box of candy with his paw.
In addition, Meg and I bought Across the Universe last weekend and I have not been able to get the Beatles out of my head since. A point was raised, however, when watching this 1960s musical melodrama about the generations. (Yes, both my parents and parents-in-law watched this too with commentary). There is a point, however, in specifically the parallels between the Vietnam and Iraq Wars.
There are certainly a lot of people angry about Bush's War, both home and abroad, much like the unfortunate mistake forty years ago, but we are without the protests, the activism, the marching. I am as guilty of this lethargy as so many others. It is certainly understandable the the nature of the world itself has changed, and for the better is many respects; this is particularly poignant when viewed through the lens of the internet (is that supposed to be capitalized?). There is without a doubt no shortage of web-activism, but I feel that many of us are removed from this. Millions are on MoveOn.org's mailing lists, but do computer-generated form letters from a "Click Here to notify your congressman/senator/governor/President Bush" really have an impact?
Does social change need the classical thousands marching in the streets? I can recall only one major event in March of 2003, right before the beginning of Bush's War*. Personally, I long for that sort of involvement-- a desire to be a part of history. I wonder now where our place is.
We qualify as "Generation Y." I like this term because someone once argued against it by saying that it made us sound "cynical and jaded" which I think astutely describes the wave of Americans born roughly between 1980 and 1993. Gen Y now enters into the beginnings of "real world" (and there is turbulence in our landing), to the beguilement of those who came before us. We are the Americans who came of age in a time of tribulation, of disaster, of change upon us whether we wanted it or not; and as we age, the older ones will step to the side and this will be ours. And our responsibility to solve for the latter end of the 21st century. It has yet to be determined how the Boomer Generation's impact on the world will be measured let alone ours.
Anyone have any thoughts?
* I'm trying to propagate the term "Bush's War" as the name for the current conflict. This is nice and egalitarian. Those who think of this war as good will always remember who led them to this glory, and those who hate it will always remember whose fault it is. Either way, I want history to remember this one as the act of our leaders and not of our nation
In addition, Meg and I bought Across the Universe last weekend and I have not been able to get the Beatles out of my head since. A point was raised, however, when watching this 1960s musical melodrama about the generations. (Yes, both my parents and parents-in-law watched this too with commentary). There is a point, however, in specifically the parallels between the Vietnam and Iraq Wars.
There are certainly a lot of people angry about Bush's War, both home and abroad, much like the unfortunate mistake forty years ago, but we are without the protests, the activism, the marching. I am as guilty of this lethargy as so many others. It is certainly understandable the the nature of the world itself has changed, and for the better is many respects; this is particularly poignant when viewed through the lens of the internet (is that supposed to be capitalized?). There is without a doubt no shortage of web-activism, but I feel that many of us are removed from this. Millions are on MoveOn.org's mailing lists, but do computer-generated form letters from a "Click Here to notify your congressman/senator/governor/President Bush" really have an impact?
Does social change need the classical thousands marching in the streets? I can recall only one major event in March of 2003, right before the beginning of Bush's War*. Personally, I long for that sort of involvement-- a desire to be a part of history. I wonder now where our place is.
We qualify as "Generation Y." I like this term because someone once argued against it by saying that it made us sound "cynical and jaded" which I think astutely describes the wave of Americans born roughly between 1980 and 1993. Gen Y now enters into the beginnings of "real world" (and there is turbulence in our landing), to the beguilement of those who came before us. We are the Americans who came of age in a time of tribulation, of disaster, of change upon us whether we wanted it or not; and as we age, the older ones will step to the side and this will be ours. And our responsibility to solve for the latter end of the 21st century. It has yet to be determined how the Boomer Generation's impact on the world will be measured let alone ours.
Anyone have any thoughts?
* I'm trying to propagate the term "Bush's War" as the name for the current conflict. This is nice and egalitarian. Those who think of this war as good will always remember who led them to this glory, and those who hate it will always remember whose fault it is. Either way, I want history to remember this one as the act of our leaders and not of our nation
28 February, 2008
Lo-- the slacker returns
Sorry for the lack of update (who do I really apologize to...?). I think that these posts need to begin having thesis. Anyway, I was surprisingly busy for a "break" last week (hence the lack of a post).
It is time to look into the green economy. I find the oncoming sustainability market as absolutely fascinating. As my understanding of (1) economics and (2) sustainability grows, so does my interest in the oncoming move. I'm a bit uncertain as to exactly where the innovation will come from (India or China, likely), but as an economy, and as a society, I think that the generational swing of inventiveness will strike again in the next decade or so.
Let's face it, most of the world is slowly becoming aware that resources are in fact, limited. Solving the problem for providing more people with less raw material is indeed the $100 billion question.
Too many ways to approach this... myriad problems to solve and myriad ways to solve them (=myriad2 solutions?) means that the late-21st century world will be defined by people and ideas (literally and figuratively) coming from all directions at once.... biotech, physical sciences, sociology, policy, agricultural... At this point, you can take your pick as to which will be the first pebble in the avalanche, but you're certain that it will come.
To make a long rant (thankfully) shorter, I think that it'd be really cool to be involved on the ground floor of something this big (karmic and financial rewards notwithstanding). It's all a matter of knowing which horse to back for this race. Or just running for yourself.
There's certainly a lot going on out there (you can reference any number of texts), and any predictions from my non-expert vantage would strictly be grasping at straws. You can, however, be assured that the billionaires of the next decade will be made in this industry.
Keep your ear to the ground. It's coming.
Sorry for the lack of update (who do I really apologize to...?). I think that these posts need to begin having thesis. Anyway, I was surprisingly busy for a "break" last week (hence the lack of a post).
It is time to look into the green economy. I find the oncoming sustainability market as absolutely fascinating. As my understanding of (1) economics and (2) sustainability grows, so does my interest in the oncoming move. I'm a bit uncertain as to exactly where the innovation will come from (India or China, likely), but as an economy, and as a society, I think that the generational swing of inventiveness will strike again in the next decade or so.
Let's face it, most of the world is slowly becoming aware that resources are in fact, limited. Solving the problem for providing more people with less raw material is indeed the $100 billion question.
Too many ways to approach this... myriad problems to solve and myriad ways to solve them (=myriad2 solutions?) means that the late-21st century world will be defined by people and ideas (literally and figuratively) coming from all directions at once.... biotech, physical sciences, sociology, policy, agricultural... At this point, you can take your pick as to which will be the first pebble in the avalanche, but you're certain that it will come.
To make a long rant (thankfully) shorter, I think that it'd be really cool to be involved on the ground floor of something this big (karmic and financial rewards notwithstanding). It's all a matter of knowing which horse to back for this race. Or just running for yourself.
There's certainly a lot going on out there (you can reference any number of texts), and any predictions from my non-expert vantage would strictly be grasping at straws. You can, however, be assured that the billionaires of the next decade will be made in this industry.
Keep your ear to the ground. It's coming.
25 February, 2008
13 February, 2008
11 February, 2008
Ranting-- Good for the soul
Good Monday, everyone!
It's an awfully hard thing to manage to find time for independent reading, but if you get the chance, I would recommend The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It's a sinclaireqsue journey to the source of the American meal. No sausage-factories per se, but it is an exploration of our society's natural propensity for abundance, and how a nation of poor in the land of plenty eventually got exactly what they wanted-- everything.
If you have spoken tome personally at some point in the last couple of years, the odds are good that you have heard at least one diatribe on the evils of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). This chemical, derived from the nutrient-rich portion of a zea mays seed (corn kernel) has found its way into just about everything most Americans eat. It is added as a sweetener, as a replacement for imported sugar by all-American midwest-grown, agricorporate-owned formerly prairie farmland. In our world, there is an eternal web of interconnectedness (i.e., I could go into a rant about the abusive power of the agribusiness lobby, but I think that would distract me from... whatever it is that I'm talking about), but in the United States, HFCS is cheap, plentiful, and artificial.
"So what if it's synthetic, Phil?"
HFCS is just the most well-known example. Looking at the back of most foods, we are familiar with the laboratory-eqsue terms such as "xantham gum," "lecithan", and others. At the heart of this matter, is that most of these are derived from corn. That's just the vegetarian-friendly fare.
Chickens eat corn. Duh. That's what they do. They're chickens. Their job is to eat things they find on the ground (corn, bugs, crap) and eat it. Later, their job is to lay a few eggs and eventually populate the stir-fry I'm planning for tomorrow night. But, we as a people are the red-meat loving, leather-wearing cowboys who like beef, which like anything else is good in moderation. Bovines, however, are ruminants, in that they are evolutionarily geared to eat grass and have a lovely symbiotic team with this undigestible-by-humans plant. But as corn is cheap & plentiful, factory cows (yes, I'll use factory, long ago, they stopped being animals and started being raw material to process) are fed only a slurry of corn/pharmaceutical-derived... something for a few brief, miserable weeks in their accelerated lives from calf-to-steak.
There is much, much more in Pollan's book, but this overdependence on maise worries me deeply. The Aztecs, who were the original cultivators of this tropical grass, literally worshiped corn as the source of all life-- they had no illusions that they were anything other than "corn people" in their own words. Yet it's this monoculture as the basis of our society's food system strikes me as highly unstable. An over-reliance on anything is dangerous; I will admittedly say that I don't know all that much about biology or agriculture, but I have a disturbing feeling that we are setting ourselves up for a Malthusian- like catastrophe in the event of a crop-collapse.
This is the sort of thing that makes me begin to consider some of the back-to-the-land movements in the '70s with some sort of quasi-utopian fantasy of a self-sustaining community up in the Green Mountains. I am often concerned about the state of the world. Or, specifically, how long we can keep going at the pace which we are. Often, I have faith that some sort of balancing forces will ultimately keep things in check, but it is likely that a proper solution would be a worldwide motion toward a sustainable planet. We certainly have enough to support everyone, but there needs to be a concerted leadership, a greater sense of unity. Goodness knows that the knowhow and funding and technology and will is out there, but so rarely do these things come together for a truly great cause. But hasn't things like this been the bane of humanity since the dawn of civilization? Are there real solutions? Or should we all just withdraw into our Ron Paul-wannabe enclaves and simply not interact with our neighbors?
To be lazy, we need a deus ex machina.
To be hopeful, we need tomorrow
Good Monday, everyone!
It's an awfully hard thing to manage to find time for independent reading, but if you get the chance, I would recommend The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It's a sinclaireqsue journey to the source of the American meal. No sausage-factories per se, but it is an exploration of our society's natural propensity for abundance, and how a nation of poor in the land of plenty eventually got exactly what they wanted-- everything.
If you have spoken tome personally at some point in the last couple of years, the odds are good that you have heard at least one diatribe on the evils of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). This chemical, derived from the nutrient-rich portion of a zea mays seed (corn kernel) has found its way into just about everything most Americans eat. It is added as a sweetener, as a replacement for imported sugar by all-American midwest-grown, agricorporate-owned formerly prairie farmland. In our world, there is an eternal web of interconnectedness (i.e., I could go into a rant about the abusive power of the agribusiness lobby, but I think that would distract me from... whatever it is that I'm talking about), but in the United States, HFCS is cheap, plentiful, and artificial.
"So what if it's synthetic, Phil?"
HFCS is just the most well-known example. Looking at the back of most foods, we are familiar with the laboratory-eqsue terms such as "xantham gum," "lecithan", and others. At the heart of this matter, is that most of these are derived from corn. That's just the vegetarian-friendly fare.
Chickens eat corn. Duh. That's what they do. They're chickens. Their job is to eat things they find on the ground (corn, bugs, crap) and eat it. Later, their job is to lay a few eggs and eventually populate the stir-fry I'm planning for tomorrow night. But, we as a people are the red-meat loving, leather-wearing cowboys who like beef, which like anything else is good in moderation. Bovines, however, are ruminants, in that they are evolutionarily geared to eat grass and have a lovely symbiotic team with this undigestible-by-humans plant. But as corn is cheap & plentiful, factory cows (yes, I'll use factory, long ago, they stopped being animals and started being raw material to process) are fed only a slurry of corn/pharmaceutical-derived... something for a few brief, miserable weeks in their accelerated lives from calf-to-steak.
There is much, much more in Pollan's book, but this overdependence on maise worries me deeply. The Aztecs, who were the original cultivators of this tropical grass, literally worshiped corn as the source of all life-- they had no illusions that they were anything other than "corn people" in their own words. Yet it's this monoculture as the basis of our society's food system strikes me as highly unstable. An over-reliance on anything is dangerous; I will admittedly say that I don't know all that much about biology or agriculture, but I have a disturbing feeling that we are setting ourselves up for a Malthusian- like catastrophe in the event of a crop-collapse.
This is the sort of thing that makes me begin to consider some of the back-to-the-land movements in the '70s with some sort of quasi-utopian fantasy of a self-sustaining community up in the Green Mountains. I am often concerned about the state of the world. Or, specifically, how long we can keep going at the pace which we are. Often, I have faith that some sort of balancing forces will ultimately keep things in check, but it is likely that a proper solution would be a worldwide motion toward a sustainable planet. We certainly have enough to support everyone, but there needs to be a concerted leadership, a greater sense of unity. Goodness knows that the knowhow and funding and technology and will is out there, but so rarely do these things come together for a truly great cause. But hasn't things like this been the bane of humanity since the dawn of civilization? Are there real solutions? Or should we all just withdraw into our Ron Paul-wannabe enclaves and simply not interact with our neighbors?
To be lazy, we need a deus ex machina.
To be hopeful, we need tomorrow
04 February, 2008
Super-extra-special-two-for-one-mega-Tuesday!
Okay, that's not for another twelve hours, when the polls open, but there is a buzz about America today. I hope that anyone who is reading this has gone out to their local polling place and cast their ballot (if able, not all of us are lucky enough to live in an open primary state). The important part is that you vote. The next most important part is that I see lots and lots of support for Senator Barack Obama, both here in Massachusetts and around the rest of the land.
I tend to wave optimist in (probably) too many things in my life, but seeing the interest today among my students in the democratic process was extremely satisfying. And this rant has suddenly become a stream-of-consciousness babble.
Nonetheless, I share in the excitement. And it's not just because I watch politics like normal people watch football. There are record numbers and interest in the primary season which has not been seen in my lifetime (I believe that NPR cited 1980 as the last time). Even people who often could not care less about these things are talking about debate performance, stance on issues, and the future decade for America and the world.
I hope that this keeps-- the natural cynic in me serves as a reminder that the hype around the primaries will die along with the anointment of the nominees (in all likelihood this week), and there will be a glut of interest until November, when we return to our <50% voter rates, etc. We seek so often for our Enlightened Republic.
Yet, I am a hopeless optimist. Let's watch tomorrow
Okay, that's not for another twelve hours, when the polls open, but there is a buzz about America today. I hope that anyone who is reading this has gone out to their local polling place and cast their ballot (if able, not all of us are lucky enough to live in an open primary state). The important part is that you vote. The next most important part is that I see lots and lots of support for Senator Barack Obama, both here in Massachusetts and around the rest of the land.
I tend to wave optimist in (probably) too many things in my life, but seeing the interest today among my students in the democratic process was extremely satisfying. And this rant has suddenly become a stream-of-consciousness babble.
Nonetheless, I share in the excitement. And it's not just because I watch politics like normal people watch football. There are record numbers and interest in the primary season which has not been seen in my lifetime (I believe that NPR cited 1980 as the last time). Even people who often could not care less about these things are talking about debate performance, stance on issues, and the future decade for America and the world.
I hope that this keeps-- the natural cynic in me serves as a reminder that the hype around the primaries will die along with the anointment of the nominees (in all likelihood this week), and there will be a glut of interest until November, when we return to our <50% voter rates, etc. We seek so often for our Enlightened Republic.
Yet, I am a hopeless optimist. Let's watch tomorrow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)