I'll admit -- I'm just as gullible as the next kid. Someone tells me, "Hey, you know gullible isn't in the dictionary?" You best believe I'm going to look. But often people are sure of their inability to be so duped. There are tests for this, just like there are for dyslexia or IQs; http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/test2.html
To most, gullibility is an aspect of comedy that the jokster relies upon with little serious intention. And yet it may be just plain gullibility, after all, that so often is relied upon when swaying public opinion on very important topics. And depending on your sense of humor, it can be anywhere between deeply disturbing to gut busting funny. One of the links Robin sent us is a simple sum of American gullibility. A kid in his high school science fair project renamed water as: dihydrogen monoxide. Duh, peeps, 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen is water! yet this kid, without much persuading, pushed the majority of his pollsters into total elimination of this "chemical". All he had to do was list the side-effects or reasons, which include:
1. it can cause excessive sweating and vomiting
2. it is a major component in acid rain
3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
4. accidental inhalation can kill you
5. it contributes to erosion
6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients
This just goes to show how easy it is to pull the veil over anyone's head. You call into question something's danger, when in fact it is life in general that is simply dangerous. It also shows how easy it is to instill fear into what is really so natural. By surmising the implications of the most common compound on Earth and the ability of one to create a rally against it is iconic of the way most public rhetoric works. The human propensity to accept ideas at face value--no matter how illogical--is the fertile soil in which pseudoscience grows.
As we teeter the line between jumping off the paranoid scale and acting like prototypical blondes (I'm allowed to make this one, please), we must have faith in our own education and ability at discerning what is BS and what is not. It is the 'grain of salt' argument, and it can be applied directly to the topic of global warming. We must take everything Michael Crichton says with a grain of salt. While his experiment with the topic isn't as simple or funny as the kid's in the science fair, they both exemplify to varying degree's how the obvious can so easily be distorted into its opposite.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
work of the public
Like the recent movie “The Day After Tomorrow”, the novel addresses real scientific issues and controversies, but is similarly selective (and occasionally mistaken) about the basic science. I will discuss a selection of the global warming-related issues that are raised in between the car chases, shoot-outs, cannibalistic rites and assorted derring-do. The champion of Crichton’s scientific view is a MIT academic-turned-undercover operative who clearly runs intellectual rings around other characters. The issues are raised as conversations and Q and A sessions between him (and other ‘good guys’) and two characters; an actor (not a very clever chap) and a lawyer (a previously duped innocent), neither of whom know much about the science.
This blurb is from the website http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/. The writer makes an argument about Crichton’s book comparing it to a movie. Many people are familiar with the story line of The Day After Tomorrow, and know that it is pretty unrealistic. Comparing the book to this movie delegitimizes Crichton’s work, declaring that it is “selective and occasionally mistaken about the basic science.” The writer claims that the characters do not know much about the science indicating that it is all false. Throughout the article, the writer takes Crichton’s science claims and explains why they are wrong or misleading, presenting “correct” information to back him up. This is the work of the public. They react to the work, legitimizing or delegitimizing it. Without people to back up or refute other’s work, people would never know what to believe or learn or study etc. This is a reference made to Latour’s diagram that shows no matter what, all parts of the society affect science.
This blurb is from the website http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/. The writer makes an argument about Crichton’s book comparing it to a movie. Many people are familiar with the story line of The Day After Tomorrow, and know that it is pretty unrealistic. Comparing the book to this movie delegitimizes Crichton’s work, declaring that it is “selective and occasionally mistaken about the basic science.” The writer claims that the characters do not know much about the science indicating that it is all false. Throughout the article, the writer takes Crichton’s science claims and explains why they are wrong or misleading, presenting “correct” information to back him up. This is the work of the public. They react to the work, legitimizing or delegitimizing it. Without people to back up or refute other’s work, people would never know what to believe or learn or study etc. This is a reference made to Latour’s diagram that shows no matter what, all parts of the society affect science.
How can you fight the invinsible???
The website I researched into was called fightglobalwarming.com. I am really not sure how legitimate this website was however. This is an environmental defense fund. The science behind this website was extremely watered down. I didn't see any authoritive science figures linked to the research or facts in which this website provided. I would argue that global warming is occurring though and I liked how this website provided information in a very simple and straight forward way that would allow any type of audience to understand the main ideas behind global warming.
It tried to instill fear within its audience by listing "dangers" as one of the side columns that you could choose from. Under this topic, the ideas of pollution trapping heat into the earths surface, and a dangerous spiral of the arctic, or "air conditioner" of the world not existing anymore because of all of the ice melting and the oceans as "global conveyer belt", not being able to circulate the worlds water around.
As far as progress this website tried to give people ideas of what they could try to do to literally fight global warming. These are the things the websited listed: use less energy in your own home, be more efficient when driving cars, and to neutralize the rest of your life.
I would not recommend this website for making a strong, intellectual arguement on the occurence of global warming this would not be the website to present to someone new, but I do believe it would be good for younger those who aren't very well informed on the topic.
It tried to instill fear within its audience by listing "dangers" as one of the side columns that you could choose from. Under this topic, the ideas of pollution trapping heat into the earths surface, and a dangerous spiral of the arctic, or "air conditioner" of the world not existing anymore because of all of the ice melting and the oceans as "global conveyer belt", not being able to circulate the worlds water around.
As far as progress this website tried to give people ideas of what they could try to do to literally fight global warming. These are the things the websited listed: use less energy in your own home, be more efficient when driving cars, and to neutralize the rest of your life.
I would not recommend this website for making a strong, intellectual arguement on the occurence of global warming this would not be the website to present to someone new, but I do believe it would be good for younger those who aren't very well informed on the topic.
Audience is Crucial
Crichton’s State of Confusion website depicts the ways in which Crichton addresses real science matters, but is selective and sometimes mistaken when it comes to the basic science behind these issues. He bends the reasoning by selecting only the evidence that supports what he believes to be accurate, disregarding the reality that could potentially disprove his theories.
As we were discussing in class, Crichton is fully aware of the overall intelligence base of the audience he speaks to when it comes to understanding as well as interpreting the scientific knowledge, and quite frankly, there is an extremely small percentage of the population who have any background on the types of science he presents. He takes advantage of this by manipulating the general audience in a number of ways. First, he is well aware that a lot of people aren’t all chemistry or biology majors who are going to immediately be able to pin-point his exact errors or be familiar with the other side of the science he chose to leave out.
Crichton writes, “Higher temperature means more water vapor in the air and therefore fewer clouds.” Critics presume he meant to argue that if temperature is higher, relative humidity is then lower, creating fewer clouds. Another example can be found when he states that croplands are warmer than forested lands. In actuality, Crichton confuses this matter with the urban heating issue, because the croplands are actually cooler, since they reflect solar radiation. This website delves into other matters, further showcasing how he has come to persuade a large number of the general public simply due to their lack of expertise on the subject matter. As a student in the School of Nursing, and an avid science lover, I wouldn’t have even recognized these errors, so how is anyone going to? However, knowing that they do exist, it’s hard to sift through the fact, fiction, and confusion.
Point in case, this type of subject takes a lot of time and tedious researching to get down to the real facts, not just those given in this book. Many readers aren’t going to give a second thought to the information, but instead take it for what it is just because they aren’t properly educated on the reality of the matter.
As we were discussing in class, Crichton is fully aware of the overall intelligence base of the audience he speaks to when it comes to understanding as well as interpreting the scientific knowledge, and quite frankly, there is an extremely small percentage of the population who have any background on the types of science he presents. He takes advantage of this by manipulating the general audience in a number of ways. First, he is well aware that a lot of people aren’t all chemistry or biology majors who are going to immediately be able to pin-point his exact errors or be familiar with the other side of the science he chose to leave out.
Crichton writes, “Higher temperature means more water vapor in the air and therefore fewer clouds.” Critics presume he meant to argue that if temperature is higher, relative humidity is then lower, creating fewer clouds. Another example can be found when he states that croplands are warmer than forested lands. In actuality, Crichton confuses this matter with the urban heating issue, because the croplands are actually cooler, since they reflect solar radiation. This website delves into other matters, further showcasing how he has come to persuade a large number of the general public simply due to their lack of expertise on the subject matter. As a student in the School of Nursing, and an avid science lover, I wouldn’t have even recognized these errors, so how is anyone going to? However, knowing that they do exist, it’s hard to sift through the fact, fiction, and confusion.
Point in case, this type of subject takes a lot of time and tedious researching to get down to the real facts, not just those given in this book. Many readers aren’t going to give a second thought to the information, but instead take it for what it is just because they aren’t properly educated on the reality of the matter.
Because the "Concerned Scientists" Say So
Well, global warming must be a legitimate threat because "the union of concerned scientists" has declared it so.
Obviously the previous statement was saturated with sarcasm but nevertheless at work is a devious marketing scheme in line with Michael Crichton's method of evoking the public's fear in regards to the "global warming crisis/emergency/catastrophe" ( you fill in the blank) The website is http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/ at at work is a series of different marketing ploys to seduce the viewer into ACTing against global warming, and as every good post-industrial thinker knows, donating is without a doubt the best way to act against a cause.
Firstly, the design of the website it self is appealing, starting with its domain name ".org" immediately implies knowledge and authority, legitimizing from the get-go. Next, the mature tan colored banner, emblazoned with the seal of the "union of concerned scientists" is stretched across the top of the site. Which is another form of legitimation by declaring oneself a scientist is it assumed that they are an expert in their field, despite the fact that there are no concrete qualifications to becoming one. Below that a series of single word tabs, each a soothing shade of blue, the first of which is "donate" There are also links along the left-hand side "scientific integrity" "global warming" and "global warming 101" The tone of the website, indicated by the syntax deployed, the color scheme, the various links and sources all work to legitimate the source. Because people will give money to a legitimate cause backed by a legitimate source.
To investigate further I clicked on the "scientific integrity" tab (top of the left-hand column) and was meet by this mission statement
Political interference in federal government science is weakening our nation's ability to respond to the complex challenges we face. Because policy makers depend on impartial research to make informed decisions, we are mobilizing scientists and citizens alike to push for reforms that will enable our leaders to fully protect our health, safety, and environment
The concerned scientists make a very big effort to distance themselves from the government, claiming that while the government's science is bad while their is legitimate because it is not corrupted by the money-focused government. There are also a series of links provided with "further information" again reinforcing that their stance is the right one.
Despite presenting themselves as a legitimate source worthy of your financial support, very little scientific facts are presented as evidence, there are no graphs, or charts, or statistics. Instead they offer a variety of links to other websites, which they declare to be credible and focus instead on presentation. I think this is the most fascinating part of the whole scheme, like Crichton the biggest part of the message is the package it is wrapped in. For Crichton this message is wrapped in a novel, in sexy female heroines capable of handling guns and juggling suitors, skeezy lawyers who manipulate the world to serve their own agenda, glamourous hollywood stars clueless and beautiful with their lattes and airplanes. For the Concerned Scientists the message is packaged in soothing mature mauve and grey-blue, with elegant font and simplistic wording (enough so that the most ignorant of ignorants can discover how to give money) To get the world to hear your message you must not present the facts, because those can be corrupted, instead you must wrap it in the right colored bow
Politics and Global Warming
As I was searching the web for an interesting article, I came across an article that was published today in the science section of the New York Times. This article can be found here:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
I definitely suggest taking a look at it. What I found interesting right off the bat is that the picture to go along with the article was that of a polar bear traversing the melting ice caps. I think it is kind of ironic how we saw this in the background report also. Not only was Al Gore grabbing our emotions, but this writer for the New York Times also feels that this picture can do that too!
As for the meat of the article, there was not a specific piece of data that this writer mentioned. Rather, he stated trends that supported the idea of global warming such as the overall increase in temperatures etc and the increase in greenhouse gases. From this he diverged into the politics of the whole situation and this is what I found to be most interesting.
To start off, recall that the Kyoto Protocol (1997) was basically an agreement between several nations that put binding restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. (This document the U.S. did not sign) Basically, nothing has happened with this until now, in 2009 country leaders' started to get their shit together and figured out that we need to do something. One of the main things on the g.w. agenda now is the cap and trade system for businesses which helps businesses who meet/exceed expectations and punishes those who don't. However, this won't go into effect until it passes in the congress, which could take a really long time.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that leaders are so caught up on the political aspects of g.w. and don't seem to have a timeline to get bills into congress. The politics are taking so long that this problem could go on for years and years before anything gets done in Washington that can severely impact the g.w. trend. We have all of these big wigs trying to make decisions that 1) aren't getting made, and 2) don't make sense. I think that in order to solve/slow this problem, perhaps a scientist who knows what exactly is going on might be able to help more than world leaders arguing about making their country profitable at the same time.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
I definitely suggest taking a look at it. What I found interesting right off the bat is that the picture to go along with the article was that of a polar bear traversing the melting ice caps. I think it is kind of ironic how we saw this in the background report also. Not only was Al Gore grabbing our emotions, but this writer for the New York Times also feels that this picture can do that too!
As for the meat of the article, there was not a specific piece of data that this writer mentioned. Rather, he stated trends that supported the idea of global warming such as the overall increase in temperatures etc and the increase in greenhouse gases. From this he diverged into the politics of the whole situation and this is what I found to be most interesting.
To start off, recall that the Kyoto Protocol (1997) was basically an agreement between several nations that put binding restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. (This document the U.S. did not sign) Basically, nothing has happened with this until now, in 2009 country leaders' started to get their shit together and figured out that we need to do something. One of the main things on the g.w. agenda now is the cap and trade system for businesses which helps businesses who meet/exceed expectations and punishes those who don't. However, this won't go into effect until it passes in the congress, which could take a really long time.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that leaders are so caught up on the political aspects of g.w. and don't seem to have a timeline to get bills into congress. The politics are taking so long that this problem could go on for years and years before anything gets done in Washington that can severely impact the g.w. trend. We have all of these big wigs trying to make decisions that 1) aren't getting made, and 2) don't make sense. I think that in order to solve/slow this problem, perhaps a scientist who knows what exactly is going on might be able to help more than world leaders arguing about making their country profitable at the same time.
All aboard the "climate ark"
The first thing I saw when I clicked on the link to climateark.org was a picture of a rusty exhaust pipe on a truck with the caption "Climate Destruction >Take Action!" juxtaposed with a photo of a polar bear on melting ice with "Protect Climate >Donate Here!" typed across it. This is a fair representative of Climate Ark's entire website.
The website is designed to be a starting point for those who want to learn more about global warming. As such, there are links to other websites with more information about climate change, organized into convenient categories. On the right are the newest headlines. Along the bottom are sub-divisions, listing causes, info on renewable energy, science and research. Almost anything you could think of relating to the issue. Each link will bring you to a page of new links to websites citing studies, legislation, ect. At first glance, it may seem like a jumbled mess, but when you really analyze it, the depth of thought that went into designing the page becomes apparent.
Climateark.org is the sort of website that anyone with even a slight interest in climate change can loose themselves in. It's a lot like the Mall of America, or any other shopping center. You may go to buy just one thing, and can easily end up spending an entire afternoon there. The site presents viewers with so many options that it can be difficult to just learn about one thing and be done with it. You can find just about anything you ever wanted to learn about global warming. (Except, of course, arguments against it.)
Climate Ark also makes their website very accessible for the general reader. With a cartoon at the bottom of the home page, a banner very clearly contrasting photos of forests on fire and people pumping gas with green trees and snow-capped mountains, and the very simplistic language used when summarizing news articles or other websites, you don't need any background in science to understand the point they are trying to get across; climate change is bad, and if you want to learn more about it this is the site you want. At the same time, the website rejects the common stereotype that those who are knowledgeable about climate change are elitist and will only talk over your head if you're not already in the loop.
Overall, Climate Ark's website appeals to the everyman. It appeals to our desire to have everything we want (in this case, information) to be in one convenient place and making that information understandable to anyone who comes across it, whether or not they know even the basics of the carbon cycle or meteorology. Heck, they even have a kids section. They are trying to reach the undecided middle-ground, and do so in a very seductive manner not often found on most pro-global warming reform websites that prefer to only present their facts, but that the anti-reform groups have been reaching out to for years.
The website is designed to be a starting point for those who want to learn more about global warming. As such, there are links to other websites with more information about climate change, organized into convenient categories. On the right are the newest headlines. Along the bottom are sub-divisions, listing causes, info on renewable energy, science and research. Almost anything you could think of relating to the issue. Each link will bring you to a page of new links to websites citing studies, legislation, ect. At first glance, it may seem like a jumbled mess, but when you really analyze it, the depth of thought that went into designing the page becomes apparent.
Climateark.org is the sort of website that anyone with even a slight interest in climate change can loose themselves in. It's a lot like the Mall of America, or any other shopping center. You may go to buy just one thing, and can easily end up spending an entire afternoon there. The site presents viewers with so many options that it can be difficult to just learn about one thing and be done with it. You can find just about anything you ever wanted to learn about global warming. (Except, of course, arguments against it.)
Climate Ark also makes their website very accessible for the general reader. With a cartoon at the bottom of the home page, a banner very clearly contrasting photos of forests on fire and people pumping gas with green trees and snow-capped mountains, and the very simplistic language used when summarizing news articles or other websites, you don't need any background in science to understand the point they are trying to get across; climate change is bad, and if you want to learn more about it this is the site you want. At the same time, the website rejects the common stereotype that those who are knowledgeable about climate change are elitist and will only talk over your head if you're not already in the loop.
Overall, Climate Ark's website appeals to the everyman. It appeals to our desire to have everything we want (in this case, information) to be in one convenient place and making that information understandable to anyone who comes across it, whether or not they know even the basics of the carbon cycle or meteorology. Heck, they even have a kids section. They are trying to reach the undecided middle-ground, and do so in a very seductive manner not often found on most pro-global warming reform websites that prefer to only present their facts, but that the anti-reform groups have been reaching out to for years.
It’s all marketing
Whether the objective is to sell a product or disseminate an idea, the target is to own the market. And in order to own the market you must do some careful marketing. Even websites about global warming have strategically designed pages to aid in the formation of an idea. Take the Union of Concerned Citizens page titled, “Crichton Thriller State of Fear” for example. There are many carefully executed dimensions that help spread support for global warming.
The first and most blatantly obvious ploy is the use of “.org” in the web address. The .org domain is most commonly used by nonprofit and philanthropic organizations and has a certain level of credibility associated with it. In fact, the Public Interest Registry, which operates and maintains the .org domain, claims .org is "considered by people around the world to be the domain of trust." However, the truth is that anyone can register for a .org domain. Nonetheless, the learned perceptions of authority and trustworthiness make .org a proper fit for a group trying to legitimize its claims about global warming.
Next, the professional web design further propagates the perception of a trustworthy and expert site for advice. The page’s qualities of attractiveness and effortless navigation ensure that visitors will be retained and come back again. The first step to building an idea to get people to read it and this website is conscientiously designed to appeal to the consumer’s eyes.
Finally, the idea is shaped by making it personally relevant to the users. In the last two FAQs listed on the page the words “we” and “our” are used extensively to extend the concept to each individual. By making the argument personally relevant people automatically become engaged because for anybody, the most important person in the world is him/herself.
Overall, the Concerned Citizen’s webpage forms a strong argument based on visual consumer behavior cue. While the page does have well cited sources and information, I think the best tools it uses to construct the idea of global warming are pre-conceived beliefs and common associations.
The first and most blatantly obvious ploy is the use of “.org” in the web address. The .org domain is most commonly used by nonprofit and philanthropic organizations and has a certain level of credibility associated with it. In fact, the Public Interest Registry, which operates and maintains the .org domain, claims .org is "considered by people around the world to be the domain of trust." However, the truth is that anyone can register for a .org domain. Nonetheless, the learned perceptions of authority and trustworthiness make .org a proper fit for a group trying to legitimize its claims about global warming.
Next, the professional web design further propagates the perception of a trustworthy and expert site for advice. The page’s qualities of attractiveness and effortless navigation ensure that visitors will be retained and come back again. The first step to building an idea to get people to read it and this website is conscientiously designed to appeal to the consumer’s eyes.
Finally, the idea is shaped by making it personally relevant to the users. In the last two FAQs listed on the page the words “we” and “our” are used extensively to extend the concept to each individual. By making the argument personally relevant people automatically become engaged because for anybody, the most important person in the world is him/herself.
Overall, the Concerned Citizen’s webpage forms a strong argument based on visual consumer behavior cue. While the page does have well cited sources and information, I think the best tools it uses to construct the idea of global warming are pre-conceived beliefs and common associations.
Climate Change for Kids!
I chose the EPA's climate change for kids site. I thought it would be interesting to see how the government presents this "debate" to the younger generation:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/change.html
In "State of Fear" Crichton presents the reader with, to use the term very liberally, science. He claims that he has no agenda but instead just wants to inform the reader of the hard facts behind climate change/global warming. What I found interesting when the viewing the EPA's climate change site for kids was that the "science" used was very similar in wording to Crichton's, which is to say that it was simple, straight to the point and exciting! Of course I'm being a little bit simplistic here, but the point is that neither of the two are actually written for scientists, but instead a less educated and fundamentally simpler crowd.
Like we've been talking about this entire class, the science cannot escape the politics. The fact that much of the evidence of climate changed can be viewed as ambiguous makes it easy to hijack and use to promote a politics. In this case simple illustrations of a surfer cresting a large wave is used to show rising sea levels. See, isn't learning about global warming fun! Along with illustrations there are interactive games and quizzes. These are obviously designed to not only inform children but also to be used as resources for teachers. Here we can see that by using all of these tools to inform the idea and science behind global warming will begin to spread. By making these resources available and easy to use, it makes it that much easier for our youth to understand global warming and begin making easy simple changes. Like: "turn off your tv when you're done" or "Make sure all the lights are off when you leave". These messages have been around for awhile, but now they've been attached to the idea of global warming.
What Would Jesus Drive?—a Hummer
Since neither State of Fear nor our class examined the role of religious ideology in shaping the global warming controversy, I chose a website that presented the topic as a religious argument. The article is “Christians and Climate Change” by James Sherk. (http://www.evangelsociety.org/sherk/wwjd.html.) The author is a member of The Evangel Society of Thought, which is associated with Hillsdale College—an Illinois-based school that promotes free-market economics.
Sherk argues that temperature records and human CO2 emissions data do not support the global warming theory. Like Michael Crichton, the author cherry picks data and references that seem to validate that conclusion. For example, Sherk states that Mann’s (1998) “hockey stick” graph, which shows little temperature change from 1400 to 1900 and a marked temperature increase during the 20th century, was based on “poor data and erroneous calculations.” He then presents a “corrected version” that shows higher temperatures prior to the 1500s (see enclosed graph) and, therefore, puts into question that warming is a result of recent human activities. However, Sherk cites no credible evidence that the so-called corrected version is based on good data and correct calculations. In addition, many of the references cited by Sherk are from free-market, conservative organizations such as the Cato Institute and Heartland Institute—hardly organizations known for unbiased policies. Sherk also states that the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal, which was signed by 4000 scientists including 70 Nobel Prize laureates, lends strong support to the proposition that science “provides no reason to limit the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.” In fact, the Heidelberg Appeal only advocates against pseudo-scientific arguments and use of false or irrelevant data. The document makes no reference to global warming or climate change. (For the complete Heidelberg Appeal text, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal.)
Sherk reassures his readers that Christians have no reason to worry about how their selection of transportation will effect the climate. They can drive whatever they wish. And the author boldly answers the pretentious question: “What would Jesus drive?” Sherk’s answer: “Whatever he chose, the exaggerated hype surrounding the global warming theory would not concern him.”
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Blog Posting #8 (Due Sunday 4/11, 11:59 P.M.): Michael Crichton ('global warming') on the Web--the public rhetoric and 'semantic contagion' of science
On the table in this part of our work is how 'minds' get formed and changed. How ideas get legs. How beliefs can go viral. How common sense becomes so common. Robin will argue ('Beyond...reason') that it's seldom a matter of facts alone.
In a sense, State of Fear is a massive 'intervention'--one that made Dr. Crichton a good deal of money, but more importantly: got him invited to the White House and to testify to Congress, and which probably changed more minds than any more familiarly scientific discovery could. Bruno Latour details how much work Pasteur had to go through to get us to 'believe in germs (ferments).' South Park has made us all knowing cynics.
Visit one of the global-warming websites we posted (or another you found, if you wish). Find a complex rich 'argument' about global warming--for, against, whatever. Show us how it works to construct a view of science, atmospheric science, authority, scientists, politicians, the world, the polis, industry, progress, fear, human agency--whatever. You pick the site, the argument (remember that arguments are typically more than words; when the idea comes out of Cartman's mouth, it's a different argument from if it came from Al Gore), the issue. Work it for us. Show us how the world of ideas gets formed.
In a sense, State of Fear is a massive 'intervention'--one that made Dr. Crichton a good deal of money, but more importantly: got him invited to the White House and to testify to Congress, and which probably changed more minds than any more familiarly scientific discovery could. Bruno Latour details how much work Pasteur had to go through to get us to 'believe in germs (ferments).' South Park has made us all knowing cynics.
Visit one of the global-warming websites we posted (or another you found, if you wish). Find a complex rich 'argument' about global warming--for, against, whatever. Show us how it works to construct a view of science, atmospheric science, authority, scientists, politicians, the world, the polis, industry, progress, fear, human agency--whatever. You pick the site, the argument (remember that arguments are typically more than words; when the idea comes out of Cartman's mouth, it's a different argument from if it came from Al Gore), the issue. Work it for us. Show us how the world of ideas gets formed.
Friday, April 9, 2010
TV Meteorologists Skeptical of Global Warming
A George Mason University poll found that 63% of TV meteorologists believe global warming is caused mostly by natural causes; 23% believe global warming is a scam. Check out Science Friday, April 9, 1-2 PM, on KNOW-FM (91.1).
http://sciencefriday.com/
Friday, April 9th, 2010
Weathercasters and Climate Change
Recently, George Mason University surveyed over 500 broadcast TV members of the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association, looking to discover their views about global warming. While 87% of the weathercasters said they had discussed global warming, 63% of those surveyed said that reported global warming is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment. 25% indicated it isn’t happening at all. And 23% said they agreed with the statement "global warming is a scam." In this segment, live from Norman, Oklahoma, we'll talk about TV weathercasters and climate change. What's their role in communicating the science to the public?
Guests
Greg Carbin Warning Coordination Meteorologist NOAA Storm Prediction Center Norman, Oklahoma
Edward Maibach Director, Center for Climate Change Communication George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia
Hank Jenkins-Smith Professor, Political Science Director, Center for Risk and Crisis Management University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma
Related Links
- Center for Climate Change Communication survey report (pdf)
- AMS statement on climate change
- National Weather Association: climate change
Segment produced by:Christopher Intagliata
Monday, April 5, 2010
Change in beliefs?
I am extremely intrigued from what I've read from the book so far. I've actually been surprised at how interested I am in reading into it farther. I Crichton offers a handful of information that makes you question your own beliefs in global warming but still offers his stance in the novel.
The passage I chose from the back matter- Author's message,page 718.
"I believe people are well intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences." -Crichton
I believe this passage nails how people are in general right on the head. Especially in matters of politics which to me this book is involved. But I do find it interesting how we could question the Author himself, it makes me think what are his biases in writing this book? His rationalizations? His self-interests?
The passage I chose from the text- page 62.
"Like it or not, we're in the middle of a war- a global war of information versus disinformation." I found this to be an interesting take on being informed. It makes me think... we all have our stands on global warming as a whole... but based off of what truth? The arguement which took place in Iceland in this novel made me wonder, how many scientists are shut up, paid off or threatened for releasing information that could possibly hurt corporations, individuals and advertising with big bucks? It's a war of truth and wealth as I look at it, and maybe money can't buy love but I do believe it can buy power, and if it's the power over a war they want, it's most likely the power in the war they will get.
The paradigm I would like to embelish on is one that is so recently but now strongly (in ways I didn't think I would believe) the idea of global warming as a conspiracy. I've taken an oceanology class and learned all about global warming and it's possible effects which I never thought could be altered from my mind because it was fact. But now I wonder again, what really is the truth? Who is exposing all of it and who is concealing all of it?
Finally I would like to discuss the tone of the book. In my reading so far the tone I get is a sense of urgency. I feel the Crichton is trying to make the reader feel the urgency of the issue of every aspect of global warming (whichever truths you may come to believe). I believe there is also a strong urgency in the characters in the book. From murders to secret, hasty meetings it seems to me that everyone has their own agenda in which they feel is most important to express accurately and quickly.
The passage I chose from the back matter- Author's message,page 718.
"I believe people are well intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences." -Crichton
I believe this passage nails how people are in general right on the head. Especially in matters of politics which to me this book is involved. But I do find it interesting how we could question the Author himself, it makes me think what are his biases in writing this book? His rationalizations? His self-interests?
The passage I chose from the text- page 62.
"Like it or not, we're in the middle of a war- a global war of information versus disinformation." I found this to be an interesting take on being informed. It makes me think... we all have our stands on global warming as a whole... but based off of what truth? The arguement which took place in Iceland in this novel made me wonder, how many scientists are shut up, paid off or threatened for releasing information that could possibly hurt corporations, individuals and advertising with big bucks? It's a war of truth and wealth as I look at it, and maybe money can't buy love but I do believe it can buy power, and if it's the power over a war they want, it's most likely the power in the war they will get.
The paradigm I would like to embelish on is one that is so recently but now strongly (in ways I didn't think I would believe) the idea of global warming as a conspiracy. I've taken an oceanology class and learned all about global warming and it's possible effects which I never thought could be altered from my mind because it was fact. But now I wonder again, what really is the truth? Who is exposing all of it and who is concealing all of it?
Finally I would like to discuss the tone of the book. In my reading so far the tone I get is a sense of urgency. I feel the Crichton is trying to make the reader feel the urgency of the issue of every aspect of global warming (whichever truths you may come to believe). I believe there is also a strong urgency in the characters in the book. From murders to secret, hasty meetings it seems to me that everyone has their own agenda in which they feel is most important to express accurately and quickly.
Language can shift the paradigm
I would just like to point out the significance of the wording used to describe this international phenomenon. Some people call it "global warming" while others call it "climate change." The two phrases can easily demonstrate which side of the argument you stand on and it is a complete marketing ploy. Global warming alludes to a devastating crisis in which the average temperature is increasing, the ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, etc. etc. While climate change is a much more passive term which implies that the world's weather is changing, whether it be for better or for worse.
If you want a real life example of this propaganda look no further than political figures. Frank Luntz is a political consultant and after significant research he advised the Republican party to begin using the term "climate change" because it was believed to sound less severe. And if you think about, what did you most often hear Bush say? How about Al Gore?... (Granted both parties now use both terms, they did originally have a much more intense political agenda.) Language is a funny thing...
(To read more about Frank Luntz and his research see an interview he did with PBS for a show called "The Persuaders": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html. He specifically talks about how language can shift a paradigm.)
If you want a real life example of this propaganda look no further than political figures. Frank Luntz is a political consultant and after significant research he advised the Republican party to begin using the term "climate change" because it was believed to sound less severe. And if you think about, what did you most often hear Bush say? How about Al Gore?... (Granted both parties now use both terms, they did originally have a much more intense political agenda.) Language is a funny thing...
(To read more about Frank Luntz and his research see an interview he did with PBS for a show called "The Persuaders": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html. He specifically talks about how language can shift a paradigm.)
Mark's Favorite Climate Change Cartoon
This cartoon, from Mark's post, adds a touch of civility to our State of Fear discourse.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
this bloated book
Michael Crichton's State of Fear is, to me, disappointing. As an avid reader of all sorts of books, I wouldn't really continue this if it weren't assigned. Which happens a lot in college, but I can always fall back on the point, "at least I learned something". And yeah, I'm learning something in this silly book. Clearly we're not reading it for the action-thriller aspect, because yikes. But where can you go from the Andromeda Strain? State of Fear is very teach-y. The book is so long because he interjects his action with hoards of his research. But can we really believe him when he is going against the scientific establishment? Definitely we must admit that consensus isn't what science is about. But it is what politics is about. It seems like Crichton looked at the issue of global warming and decided to take the side of the few. And really, why do it unless you have a political ax to grind? ANyway, the why isn't so intriguing as how. How do you create a best-seller out of a bunky opinion? Somehow he took the same data that climate scientists use, and form the opposite opinion? This is where his charts and graphs come in as awesome seeing devices. He speaks of satellites taking measures of sea levels that are better than the on-land tools. His footnotes almost sparkle with brilliant evidence. And this definitely works on some people, but I'm not so sure i'm convinced.
I took a really awesome geography class once and we talked a lot about global warming. One thing I remember is what global warming is exactly. And it is right in the name. Global warming refers to the global mean surface temperature. Obviously the earth heats and cools in stages, and not in a uniform way. But that gets overlooked, and as Jennifer tries to declare, "And its effect is presumably the same every where in the world. That's why it's called global warming" (475). Crichton uses a lot of temperature data from specific locations. He tries to show that warming isn't happening everywhere. Yes, that's totally true. As you get more centralized on a specific point, local weather has a greater effect on the surface temp. But that's why it is so important to take a large scale area average temperature, which will show a clear warming trend. For Crichton to pick out specific cites of cooling doesn't really matter.
In his first appendix he strangely pulls together global warming with the 19th century eugenics movement. He calls dangerous the "intermixing of science and politics" as a "bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest" (731). First, to connect the science behind global warming and eugenics is a cheap one. Second, this dude's book is full of politics and clearly he is blind to it.
I took a really awesome geography class once and we talked a lot about global warming. One thing I remember is what global warming is exactly. And it is right in the name. Global warming refers to the global mean surface temperature. Obviously the earth heats and cools in stages, and not in a uniform way. But that gets overlooked, and as Jennifer tries to declare, "And its effect is presumably the same every where in the world. That's why it's called global warming" (475). Crichton uses a lot of temperature data from specific locations. He tries to show that warming isn't happening everywhere. Yes, that's totally true. As you get more centralized on a specific point, local weather has a greater effect on the surface temp. But that's why it is so important to take a large scale area average temperature, which will show a clear warming trend. For Crichton to pick out specific cites of cooling doesn't really matter.
In his first appendix he strangely pulls together global warming with the 19th century eugenics movement. He calls dangerous the "intermixing of science and politics" as a "bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest" (731). First, to connect the science behind global warming and eugenics is a cheap one. Second, this dude's book is full of politics and clearly he is blind to it.
the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself
So far from what I’ve read, I feel that Crichton has good intentions when he is writing, but I’m not a fan of his writing style. I think that to try and relay information about such a huge topic is too hard to do in a story-type book. The “education” readings are very lengthy, and hard to get through. If someone were to start reading this book thinking it was a fictional story, which it is, they would probably become turned away by the science overload unless they were really interested by the topic. Just as the cover says it is “edge of your seat story-telling,” but the edge of a seat can get uncomfortable if a lot of time is spent there. Now I am also not familiar with Crichton, this is my first time reading his work, so this could very well be the writing style that has gotten his name so known, but from what I’ve read, I’m not completely attached. This could very well change as I progress into the book.
From reading some reviews of State of Fear, it is apparent that not all of Crichton’s sources are legitimate. Some of the scientific claims he makes about global warming are false, and can be proven false. Not to say I don’t give him a lot of credit for the research he has done on the subject, but this topic is hugely being discussed all over, and it is assumed that people educated on this subject will read his book. Many people will probably critique it, so I feel he should make sure his shit is legit. But maybe his point in this was to say that not one person knows all of the facts 100% about any one subject, which is exactly why global warming is such a debated topic. People can make claims or try and find truths, but they may be wrong in doing so.
There are many charts, graphs, hybrids, and other “seeing devices” used in his book. These tools remap people’s thoughts by structuring their mind to believe what they are seeing. Words can be refuted, but as soon as something is put in a graph, map, diagram, etc, it is harder to ignore or object what is being displayed. They give people a way to make sense out of something, or find a new meaning in something, or find a way to relate everything to math and science. Using maps and graphs help legitimate Crichton’s work.
“The other men had each taken one of his wrists, and they were pulling his arms, wide, spread-eagling him on the bed. They were getting ready to do something to him. He felt terrified and vulnerable. He moaned, and somebody hit him on the back of the head. ‘Quiet!’” This is a passage on page 14 of the book. Crichton wastes no time getting to the suspenseful parts in the book, engaging the reader right away. This is a smart move on his part, because it would be hard to put something down at a part like this. This passage, along with many others, is strategically written, as to keep the reader alert even during some of the boring, education parts.
From reading some reviews of State of Fear, it is apparent that not all of Crichton’s sources are legitimate. Some of the scientific claims he makes about global warming are false, and can be proven false. Not to say I don’t give him a lot of credit for the research he has done on the subject, but this topic is hugely being discussed all over, and it is assumed that people educated on this subject will read his book. Many people will probably critique it, so I feel he should make sure his shit is legit. But maybe his point in this was to say that not one person knows all of the facts 100% about any one subject, which is exactly why global warming is such a debated topic. People can make claims or try and find truths, but they may be wrong in doing so.
There are many charts, graphs, hybrids, and other “seeing devices” used in his book. These tools remap people’s thoughts by structuring their mind to believe what they are seeing. Words can be refuted, but as soon as something is put in a graph, map, diagram, etc, it is harder to ignore or object what is being displayed. They give people a way to make sense out of something, or find a new meaning in something, or find a way to relate everything to math and science. Using maps and graphs help legitimate Crichton’s work.
“The other men had each taken one of his wrists, and they were pulling his arms, wide, spread-eagling him on the bed. They were getting ready to do something to him. He felt terrified and vulnerable. He moaned, and somebody hit him on the back of the head. ‘Quiet!’” This is a passage on page 14 of the book. Crichton wastes no time getting to the suspenseful parts in the book, engaging the reader right away. This is a smart move on his part, because it would be hard to put something down at a part like this. This passage, along with many others, is strategically written, as to keep the reader alert even during some of the boring, education parts.
I dislike Crichton
I too was stuck by the “everyone has an agenda. Except me” bit at the end. And by “stuck by” I mean “really annoyed with”. Of course you have an agenda, you fuck!! What makes you think you’re work is not infused with the same cultural, political, scientific discourse that everyone else’s everything is shaped by? His entire fucking book is about how what we assume to be “natural facts” “proven with data” are actually influenced by politics and money and the media, and how nothing is so simple as it’s presented, devoid of it’s background. Asserting he has no agenda kind of seems to be asserting that his thoughts, work of fiction etc are paradigm free. Every graph he chose and plot twist and even the words he used were used for a reason (whether he knows it or not). It’s like advertising–even if we can’t explain it, we can still put together a video or image and know that it’s appealing. If you stop to analyze each little component you get a rich cultural history for each and start to understand why we are programmed to think it is appealing. Crichton’s presentation of the story is the same way–even if he doesn’t understand what influences his choice of words, graphs, characters etc (and therefore assumes it is “random), our culture does–thousands of paradigms. Actually, now that I think about it, saying “Everyone except me” makes no sense because it is at the end of his huge blurb of his own thoughts on the issue, that correspond to Morton’s conclusion (it seems) at the end of the book. So it seems that Crichton’s story was used to convince us of (emotionally hook us onto) his message at the end of the book. My passage of the novel actually corresponds to this thought–on page 114, Jennifer and Evans are discussing the data that is to be presented in court in the Vanutu lawsuit. Crichton writes (Jennifer speaking), “Newspapers and television are susceptible to carefully orchestrated media campaigns. Lawsuits are not”. I feel like this is a direct contradiction to Crichton “everyone except me” bit (and his “footnotes are real” bit too…). By that I do not mean that I think this book or all the data cited was a mass media campaign. I do however, think that the broader point Jennifer is making is that everything is influenced in some way, be it the media or whatever. I really don’t understand how Crichton can assert that what he presents at the back of the book is neutral and objective–neither such things exist, nothing is without a paradigm. What an idiot.
I think Crichton’s choice of including graphs in the book also kind of exemplify this. He chooses to include “seeing devices” as a way to convince the reader of the legitimacy of his argument. And it works–as I looked at the “redone” versions of the graphs, I found myself questioning what I have accepted for years as “natural facts”. It seems like the inclusion of the graphs in the book (as opposed to just describing them or something) is an example of subconsciously choosing something to make an argument. Presenting a plot with a seeing device makes the plot seem more convincing, which in turn strengthens his argument at the end.
Another thing I really dislike about this book is the language he uses. Not just the super objectifying descriptions of literally every female character, or the horrible “seductive” dialogue between the female characters and the male characters, but the tone the language creates. Crichton criticizes climate scientists for the state of emergency they have put us in (both within the book and his bit at the end), but uses the exact same device in the book to make us more susceptible to his message at the end. The entire idea of writing a thriller about the issue of global warming and how it may be a hoax is to plant the idea in our head and put us into an emotional state so that at the end of the novel, we are more than ready to listen to his message. The tense tone of the book, the fast-moving plot filled with murder and other disasters (scary cannibals, scary arctic, scary people in trucks, chases, etc) is designed to freak us out so that at the end of the book we listen to “the voice of reason”.
This is way too long and pretty unorganized…I apologize, I just really don’t like this guy.
I think Crichton’s choice of including graphs in the book also kind of exemplify this. He chooses to include “seeing devices” as a way to convince the reader of the legitimacy of his argument. And it works–as I looked at the “redone” versions of the graphs, I found myself questioning what I have accepted for years as “natural facts”. It seems like the inclusion of the graphs in the book (as opposed to just describing them or something) is an example of subconsciously choosing something to make an argument. Presenting a plot with a seeing device makes the plot seem more convincing, which in turn strengthens his argument at the end.
Another thing I really dislike about this book is the language he uses. Not just the super objectifying descriptions of literally every female character, or the horrible “seductive” dialogue between the female characters and the male characters, but the tone the language creates. Crichton criticizes climate scientists for the state of emergency they have put us in (both within the book and his bit at the end), but uses the exact same device in the book to make us more susceptible to his message at the end. The entire idea of writing a thriller about the issue of global warming and how it may be a hoax is to plant the idea in our head and put us into an emotional state so that at the end of the novel, we are more than ready to listen to his message. The tense tone of the book, the fast-moving plot filled with murder and other disasters (scary cannibals, scary arctic, scary people in trucks, chases, etc) is designed to freak us out so that at the end of the book we listen to “the voice of reason”.
This is way too long and pretty unorganized…I apologize, I just really don’t like this guy.
everyone has an opinion
But when reading novels one must remember the difference between facts and opinion. This book is great for the study of legitimation. Crichton uses the graphs, figures and footnotes of climate scientists and big words both to look like he's done some real research and present the book as a factual analysis rather than the fiction that it is. He also tries to de-legitimate environmental activists by creating their characters to be arrogant or have personality flaws. One might call the novel an analogy but I call it a strawman. It doesn't take much to twist excepts and statistics to sway the general public to be either in favor or against any particular issue. This goes back the the increasing trend of the democratization of science, which is troubling to me as I know how hard it is to keep opinions and facts separate. As humans even scientists have their pet theories but they should also have the training and courage to give up a theory when confronted with overwhelming evidence against it, and I would say most of them do. Crichton reminds me of creationists who have an agenda in mind (their faith in the bible) and then go looking for facts to back up their preconceived notions rather than observing and making non-contradictory informed inferences.
my favorite climate change comic:
http://brandonferguson.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/091207usatC.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg
my favorite climate change comic:
http://brandonferguson.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/091207usatC.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg
Crichton's Cartisian Paradigm
Lucky for me over this upcoming weekend i venture out into the unknown world of missouri, having to endure a 2 hour plane flight and hopefully finishing this novel. For i believe (as a previous entry mentioned) Michael Crichton's State of Fear makes for delightful plane-reading. Its language easy, the plot engaging, and the subject matter dramatic.
Despite my fondness for Crichton as a cure to aviation boredom, his work is slightly more difficult to address from a scholastic standpoint. I think that his previous work, such as the referenced jarassic park, legitimizes him as an author, however i think that in State of Fear he seeks to expand this range of legitimation to something more, an advocate for the humanity, the informed concerned citizen. As already discussed within the blog, he says in the final bullet point of his author's message he says "everyone has an agenda except me" (p 721) Obviously this is not entirely true as a main objective of his book is to sell copies making a profit for Harper Collins his publisher. Additionally, he makes another comment (one that struck me) and the end of his first appendix saying, "and that is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest." (731) As any good science studies scholar knows it is impossible to separate science from politics, politics dictates both the science being studied and the way it is interpreted.
Politics is a experienced within a specific paradigm, that it helps to reinforce, additionally various seeing devices are deployed at work within the paradigm. Michael Crichton takes full advantage of these seeing devices in the forms of graphs and charts, both Cartisian in nature, thus in-line with the world's current paradigm, or way of viewing the world. Pages 107-112 contain graphs depicting the earth's global temperatures, without existence of the Cartisian paradigm these graphs would be incomprehensible. The graphs are also accompanied by dialog indirectly indicating what the graphs are about, and their significance. This diction (lit word, meaning word choice and region) is significant because Crichton uses stages his characters as experts who are explaining this information, thus the reader views it as scientific and therefore based in fact. Furthermore, Crichton legitimizes himself and the graphs by providing references to their origin. I believe that Crichton as an author certainly works under an agenda, whether he is willing to acknowledge it or not, he also uses seeing devices, at work within a Cartisian paradigm to legitimize himself and his story.
Fact Vs. Fiction
I find it very confusing and somewhat frustrating trying to read a fictitious book with so many real theories and scientific research studies incorporated within it. It’s unusual to find a piece of literature closely mimicking a novel in structure like this, but still having a lot of truth built into it. He states in his bibliography where he is finding the issues in which he chooses to manipulate throughout the text in whatever way he can, in hopes of proving his point and allowing readers to form their own ideas based on what is presented. Knowing that the scientific journal articles have been translated to assist as references, I feel like Crichton has puzzled me more than I initially had been before reading, because now I’m not sure what has been validated and what has been constructed.
“Juries aren’t comfortable reading graphs. And all this talk about tenths of a degree Celsius goes right over their heads. It’s technical detail; it’s the quibbles of experts; and it’s incredibly boring for normal people” (118). This particular passage makes a good point that really promotes whether or not an individual chooses to support global warming. When he or she is well-versed in science and capable of understanding data records and crazy scientific terms, it may be easier to be swayed to believe global warming exists. On the contrary, if a person is absolutely unfamiliar with these nitty-gritty aspects, a more visual and concrete representation is going to be necessary for these “normal people” who have no idea where to begin grasping the complexity of the data. I feel this is something that needs to be kept in mind, because it’s a lot of time automatically assumed everyone is able to comprehend these procedures.
In regards to science studies, Crichton mentions the fact that every scientist has an idea of how the experiment is going to turn out, or an expectation, therefore often leading to unconscious scientific biases. This idea essentially contradicts all the previous arguments for global warming by saying that it’s almost impossible to determine anything when data is being constantly adjusted as well as small errors due to deviations in equipment. Judgment is concluded to be the end indicator of all records. At this point, I’m unsure of what I conceive to be justifiable.
My thoughts on the literary aspect of the novel is that it is painfully simple. The characters aren’t too multi-faceted and I almost have to laugh at the all too commonplace, cheesy conversations and events among the characters such as: “I was wondering if your schedule was really tight, or whether there was time for you and me to have lunch.” / “Oh,” Evans said, without missing a beat, “my schedule isn’t that tight.” / “Good,” she said (122). *Barf*
“Juries aren’t comfortable reading graphs. And all this talk about tenths of a degree Celsius goes right over their heads. It’s technical detail; it’s the quibbles of experts; and it’s incredibly boring for normal people” (118). This particular passage makes a good point that really promotes whether or not an individual chooses to support global warming. When he or she is well-versed in science and capable of understanding data records and crazy scientific terms, it may be easier to be swayed to believe global warming exists. On the contrary, if a person is absolutely unfamiliar with these nitty-gritty aspects, a more visual and concrete representation is going to be necessary for these “normal people” who have no idea where to begin grasping the complexity of the data. I feel this is something that needs to be kept in mind, because it’s a lot of time automatically assumed everyone is able to comprehend these procedures.
In regards to science studies, Crichton mentions the fact that every scientist has an idea of how the experiment is going to turn out, or an expectation, therefore often leading to unconscious scientific biases. This idea essentially contradicts all the previous arguments for global warming by saying that it’s almost impossible to determine anything when data is being constantly adjusted as well as small errors due to deviations in equipment. Judgment is concluded to be the end indicator of all records. At this point, I’m unsure of what I conceive to be justifiable.
My thoughts on the literary aspect of the novel is that it is painfully simple. The characters aren’t too multi-faceted and I almost have to laugh at the all too commonplace, cheesy conversations and events among the characters such as: “I was wondering if your schedule was really tight, or whether there was time for you and me to have lunch.” / “Oh,” Evans said, without missing a beat, “my schedule isn’t that tight.” / “Good,” she said (122). *Barf*
State of Crichton
Having been a big fan of Crichton’s Jurassic Park, I thought that I would be receiving this novel very well. In
I think the cover of State of
In the first few pages, Crichton asks through a character, “Qu’est-ce que tu penses”, French for “What do you think?”. This is a question I have been asking myself throughout the entirety of my time reading – and one that should be constantly asked until the end. My fear is that in the same way that I have been interpolated into the cultural phenomena of Global Warming, others may find themselves on the other side of the fence.
Maybe I’m just selfish.
The Global Warming Hybrid
From what I've read of Michael Crichton's State of Fear so far, I am getting the feeling that global warming itself is a hybrid. There are a lot of inputs that affect global warming, pollution: automobiles, cattle, and government enforcements such as increase in required fuel efficiency in cars. Global warming then causes water levels to temperatures and levels to rise, which in turn causes less favorable conditions for some of the aquatic life...
I think Crichton kind of shows this complexity in one of his passages on pg 120, where Balder says, "You think sea level is simple? Trust me, its not...How about the glacio-hydroisostatic modeling?" Balder goes on and on about how complicated it is to measure the sea level. From this we get a feeling that Balder wears kind of a big head/the mood it sets off is that he feels as if he is better than everyone. Also, by Crichton putting all of these science terms in there in a kind of story format, he is just barely revealing the complexity of this hybrid, global warming. I think the best review to sum up what I have just discussed is the one by USA Today, "Crichton marries compelling subject matter with edge-of-your seat storytelling...He can impress techno-geeks eager to analyze the scientific data he weaves through his stories."
I think Crichton kind of shows this complexity in one of his passages on pg 120, where Balder says, "You think sea level is simple? Trust me, its not...How about the glacio-hydroisostatic modeling?" Balder goes on and on about how complicated it is to measure the sea level. From this we get a feeling that Balder wears kind of a big head/the mood it sets off is that he feels as if he is better than everyone. Also, by Crichton putting all of these science terms in there in a kind of story format, he is just barely revealing the complexity of this hybrid, global warming. I think the best review to sum up what I have just discussed is the one by USA Today, "Crichton marries compelling subject matter with edge-of-your seat storytelling...He can impress techno-geeks eager to analyze the scientific data he weaves through his stories."
science fact
The first thing that caught my eye when I started reading was the line which claimed that "Footnotes are real". The idea is that even though this is a work of fiction, it is based in fact. Michael Crichton writes blending fact and fiction together in such a way that it may become difficult to remember what is real. I mean, of course the characters and situations are fake (as even Crichton admits), but is the science real? That's what the footnote comment appears to imply.
On page 54 of my copy, we encounter a scientist being pressured to more or less rewrite the facts which he has observed, that global warming is not being observed in Iceland (accompanied by a footnote). The scientist character argues over what the "reality" is and what he is being encouraged to write about. This immediately makes the reader wonder. We all accept global warming as a fact. Is it possible that maybe the data is being misreported or misrepresented when it doesn't match what "they" want us to know? I guess this is like Latour's black boxing- we know global warming is happening, but we don't know very much of the process behind how we know. Crichton points this out to us throughout the book.
It becomes clear as the book goes on that there is a lot behind what we think about global warming. It's not just an issue about the environment; politics, public opinion, and money is also involved; a hybrid issue, in Crichton's opinion. It's interesting because it seems, at times, that Crichton wants to be above the fray, an observer who has no agenda, as the post below me mentions, other than to tell the truth. In my opinion, however, he is definitely another part of the hybrid he sees.
As far as writing, Michael Crichton's writing is basically in the style of most any thriller. The beginning chapters with POV changes every few pages confused me and left me distraught, a little like some of his other books. It's not till you're nearly 100 pages in that you know who the throwaway characters are and who to pay attention to. None of the characters appear to have any depth thus far, and I'm not feeling particularly concerned for anyone.
The sentences are usually short, probably to give a "tense" feeling to the book. The women are all described in terms of how sexy they are. Non-white characters are often described as being "dark and _____", like "the man watched him, dark and watchful" (not a direct quote from the book, but you get the point). Basically, it's not great writing, but it reads very quickly, perfect for airplanes or something.
In terms of how it works as science fiction, that's actually kind of interesting to me. I think that a lot of sci-fi can be cautionary in nature, the idea that someday we'll go too far. Michael Crichton appears to think that we'll be just fine, and that it's the people who caution us that we need to be worried about. In his own words, "I suspect that the people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy ... I don't think we have to worry about them."
He also utilizes a huge bibliography for a work of fiction, which I think is supposed to lend him some credibility- the idea that he did significant research in science fact before writing science fiction. Several of his other books have also had short notes on the facts... Terminal Man (don't judge me) has 5 pages of bibliography, but State of Fear has nearly 30, which doesn't even include appendices I and II.
"Everyone has an agenda. Except me"
I would say the author's agenda is to sell more books. In the authors message section I have trouble with the statements about the people of the year 2100. The author says that they will be richer but doesn't say why. He also says that they will demand more energy which I believe. Then he says there will be a much smaller global population and once again doesn't say why or how.
When an author makes statements like this he should always back them up with facts. No one knows what the world will be like in 90 years and if people such as Michael Crichton believe they have an idea of what it is like then they should always back it up with something.
When an author makes statements like this he should always back them up with facts. No one knows what the world will be like in 90 years and if people such as Michael Crichton believe they have an idea of what it is like then they should always back it up with something.
Hypocrisy at its finest
Michael Crichton is a hypocrite. From what I have read of his book, State of Fear, I believe he is simply using fire to fight fire. Crichton’s personal philosophy that global warming is a hoax only further propagates the theory. In my opinion, he is not effectively debunking the concept, but instead romanticizing it. Though, I will say his successful use of logos and ethos has created a mass-market thriller worthy of a read.
Crichton is no different than the scientists, politicians and environmental agencies that use charts, graphs, and any sort of data to convince the public about the effects of global warming. His appeal to logos is spelled out before the book even begins. There is a disclaimer that reads, ''This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institutions and organizations in this novel are the product of the author's imagination, or, if real, are used fictitiously without any intent to describe their actual conduct. However, references to real people, institutions and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real.” The footnotes are merely a seeing device. They provide a way to view an argument from whatever angle is most advantageous. I believe Crichton uses footnotes to further legitimize his position because facts appeal to a person’s logic (a completely Cartesian appeal, might I add.). It is difficult to argue with facts but the truth is anybody can pick a set of facts that support an argument.
Between the footnotes and long-winded lectures from various characters, Crichton also cleverly weaves in a suspenseful plot. His use of heroes, villains and an evil plot easily attracts the emotional readers with a direct appeal to their ethos. It’s hard not to feel empathy for Evans when after discovering Morton’s car, “He sat down in the road and put his head in his hands. And cried.” [pg. 162] These gripping scenes are what kept me turning the pages when it got to educational parts.
I agree that Crichton did his fair share of research to write this book and I do not argue that his intentions were good. But, the irony of his book is too clear to ignore. I agree with the review of Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. (Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc.) when he sums up the book from a passage on page 531.
"Her intentions are good," she said.
"And her information is bad," Kenner said. "A prescription for disaster."
Crichton is no different than the scientists, politicians and environmental agencies that use charts, graphs, and any sort of data to convince the public about the effects of global warming. His appeal to logos is spelled out before the book even begins. There is a disclaimer that reads, ''This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institutions and organizations in this novel are the product of the author's imagination, or, if real, are used fictitiously without any intent to describe their actual conduct. However, references to real people, institutions and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real.” The footnotes are merely a seeing device. They provide a way to view an argument from whatever angle is most advantageous. I believe Crichton uses footnotes to further legitimize his position because facts appeal to a person’s logic (a completely Cartesian appeal, might I add.). It is difficult to argue with facts but the truth is anybody can pick a set of facts that support an argument.
Between the footnotes and long-winded lectures from various characters, Crichton also cleverly weaves in a suspenseful plot. His use of heroes, villains and an evil plot easily attracts the emotional readers with a direct appeal to their ethos. It’s hard not to feel empathy for Evans when after discovering Morton’s car, “He sat down in the road and put his head in his hands. And cried.” [pg. 162] These gripping scenes are what kept me turning the pages when it got to educational parts.
I agree that Crichton did his fair share of research to write this book and I do not argue that his intentions were good. But, the irony of his book is too clear to ignore. I agree with the review of Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. (Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc.) when he sums up the book from a passage on page 531.
"Her intentions are good," she said.
"And her information is bad," Kenner said. "A prescription for disaster."
State of Annoyance
Before I begin my review, I feel like I should make something clear first. I really don't like this book, so I feel that I'll probably have a strong bias against it. Also, there is a high probability I will swear in this post. If this offends you, turn away now! This is largely due to the fact that as I read State of Fear, it's playing out like a bad made-for-TV movie in my head. I feel very frustrated that I don't have the option to stop reading it.
In the assignment, Ben says that the whole novel is incredibly cliched. I would say that this is an understatement. I mean, there's a goddamn Mount Terror. That's something I'd expect in a most a novel for pre-teens. What in Crichton's mind made him think "Hey! Mount Terror! Now that's a cool name." The characters are flat, and thus I feel no sort of empathy with any of them. The plot is not just as dull as the characters, and is insanely predictable. I don't think that there has been a single part, with the possible exception of the first guy being killed, where I have though to myself "Oh, that was unexpected" or "How interesting."
Now, usually none of this would bother me all that much. I've read my fair share of drivel before. But the fact that, literary-wise, it's trash is only made even more unbearable by what people have said on the internet about it and the review quotes on the back. I got the book off of Amazon, and was surprised by the comments I saw about it. The vast majority of were along the lines of "Stick it environmentalists! You see? Global warming doesn't exist. There's a book about it now. And if you disagree, you're just sheep who will believe anything 'science' tells you." Okay, that wasn't an actual quote, but you get my drift. I was pretty biased against the book before I even received it.
The fact that I felt so strongly against before even seeing it just proves how much of a hybrid it is. The hybridity of it and the fact that Crichton uses the novel to contest a global phenomena that I feel has been pretty well proven, frustrates me to no end. I mean, really, aren't there enough people in the world who are skeptical about global warming and thus are slowing progress down for rest of us already? I'm all about sharing your opinion, and there is no reason why Crichton shouldn't have written this book. What upsets me most is that this novel (which was #1 at Amazon when it came out and #2 on the NY Times Best Seller List) is probably the only seeing device through which many people look at global warming. (Well, and maybe Fox News.) The fact that Crichton panders off the science in the book as being well-researched means that for those people, they will never question what he said. They'll never even do enough of their own research to see that most the scientists Crichton quotes in his novel and appendices say the science was erroneous or distorted. And even if someone told them, the fact that Crichton has been so legitimated as an authority on global warming (he's even been called to testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and State of Fear was even required reading for them from 2003-2007) there's a good chance they would not listen. Even the quote on the inside flap of the hardcover version states "Only Crichton's unique ability to blend scientific fact with pulse-pounding fiction could bring such desperate conditions to a heart-stopping conclusion." Right there, before the book even starts, Crichton is lifted above the heads of us lowly humans with the promise that he alone will bring us the truth about global warming all the while wrapping it in seduction, suspense and mystery. How exciting!
A lot of people have brought up Crichton's quote "Everyone has an agenda. Except me", and justly, I'd say. Of course you have an agenda, Mr. Crichton. Otherwise you wouldn't be writing your damn book. Even supposing that I didn't believe that your out to push a way to look at global warming, with your pseudo-science and misleading statements, you are at least out to make a buck, which definitely counts for something. Who are you trying to get to read your book? Who are your publishers and what do they think? How are you going to convince people your novel is worth reading? Each of these questions has huge implications that shouldn't be ignored.
In the assignment, Ben says that the whole novel is incredibly cliched. I would say that this is an understatement. I mean, there's a goddamn Mount Terror. That's something I'd expect in a most a novel for pre-teens. What in Crichton's mind made him think "Hey! Mount Terror! Now that's a cool name." The characters are flat, and thus I feel no sort of empathy with any of them. The plot is not just as dull as the characters, and is insanely predictable. I don't think that there has been a single part, with the possible exception of the first guy being killed, where I have though to myself "Oh, that was unexpected" or "How interesting."
Now, usually none of this would bother me all that much. I've read my fair share of drivel before. But the fact that, literary-wise, it's trash is only made even more unbearable by what people have said on the internet about it and the review quotes on the back. I got the book off of Amazon, and was surprised by the comments I saw about it. The vast majority of were along the lines of "Stick it environmentalists! You see? Global warming doesn't exist. There's a book about it now. And if you disagree, you're just sheep who will believe anything 'science' tells you." Okay, that wasn't an actual quote, but you get my drift. I was pretty biased against the book before I even received it.
The fact that I felt so strongly against before even seeing it just proves how much of a hybrid it is. The hybridity of it and the fact that Crichton uses the novel to contest a global phenomena that I feel has been pretty well proven, frustrates me to no end. I mean, really, aren't there enough people in the world who are skeptical about global warming and thus are slowing progress down for rest of us already? I'm all about sharing your opinion, and there is no reason why Crichton shouldn't have written this book. What upsets me most is that this novel (which was #1 at Amazon when it came out and #2 on the NY Times Best Seller List) is probably the only seeing device through which many people look at global warming. (Well, and maybe Fox News.) The fact that Crichton panders off the science in the book as being well-researched means that for those people, they will never question what he said. They'll never even do enough of their own research to see that most the scientists Crichton quotes in his novel and appendices say the science was erroneous or distorted. And even if someone told them, the fact that Crichton has been so legitimated as an authority on global warming (he's even been called to testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and State of Fear was even required reading for them from 2003-2007) there's a good chance they would not listen. Even the quote on the inside flap of the hardcover version states "Only Crichton's unique ability to blend scientific fact with pulse-pounding fiction could bring such desperate conditions to a heart-stopping conclusion." Right there, before the book even starts, Crichton is lifted above the heads of us lowly humans with the promise that he alone will bring us the truth about global warming all the while wrapping it in seduction, suspense and mystery. How exciting!
A lot of people have brought up Crichton's quote "Everyone has an agenda. Except me", and justly, I'd say. Of course you have an agenda, Mr. Crichton. Otherwise you wouldn't be writing your damn book. Even supposing that I didn't believe that your out to push a way to look at global warming, with your pseudo-science and misleading statements, you are at least out to make a buck, which definitely counts for something. Who are you trying to get to read your book? Who are your publishers and what do they think? How are you going to convince people your novel is worth reading? Each of these questions has huge implications that shouldn't be ignored.
State of Suspense
Being a slow reader (even with forth-grade level text), I have read about 225 pages into Crichton’s State of Fear. Nevertheless, I will comment the best I can on the four topics that Ben specified.
From “Appendix I—Why Politicized Science is Dangerous”: Crichton argues that scientists, because of their continual quest for research support, can develop biases that favor the ideology of the sponsor at the expense of the Holy Grail of scientific truth. That position echoes President Eisenhower’s warning of adverse influences of a military-industrial complex. Perhaps, to more accurately reflect Crichton’s and Eisenhower’s concerns, I would expand that complex to include academia and advocacy organizations. Especially relevant and thought provoking is Crichton’s thesis: “In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right." (Page 731.) Crichton implies that the “old men” might not be up on the latest science, but, because they are immune to the pressures of financial support, are likely to make decisions based strictly on truth. As an old man, I cannot agree more with Crichton.
From the novel: A passage that struck me was Crichton’s description of how NERF purposefully manipulated the news media. (Pages 193-202.) The NERF personnel eagerly massaged their “Abrupt Climate Change: The Dangers Ahead” message and media kit, even at the expense of accuracy, to assure maximal public impact. My fear is that Crichton’s fictional account is close to the truth. I now wonder if advocacy organizations such as the Sierra Club, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Greenpeace, and PETA are as virtuous as they would like the public to think.
Term/concept from science studies: I cannot think of a better fit for Latour’s black box than global warming. Many of us assume global warming is real but do not understand how or why that phenomenon takes place. That is the global warming black box. Surrounding that box are the competing influences of science, politics, religious ideology, and corporate and advocacy group special interests.
Term/concept from literary studies: State of Fear is a Cartesian wonderland. Throughout the novel, Crichton states the time and location of each event. Early in the novel, many of these events seem unrelated. But, as the mystery unravels, I expect Crichton will connect all these coordinates and reveal their relevance to the story. I cannot wait!
Friday, April 2, 2010
Blog posting #7 (due Sunday 4/4, 11:59 P.M.): Who's afraid of STATE OF FEAR?
Michael Crichton's State of Fear is, in my opinion, the hardest book we're reading in this class. Nevermind that it's written at about a fourth-grade reading level and the plot and characters are cliché as hell. Crichton has produced an extremely tight, often inscrutably knotted hybrid of research, rhetoric, ideology, history, publics, blackboxes, seeing devices...and a whole lot more. Our task, over the next three weeks, is to untangle it and figure out how it works. Here, we make the first step.
Your assignment: react to the book -- or what you've read of it thus far.
(Try to get about 300-400 pages into it before responding, to get a decent grasp of the whole. It shouldn't take too long.)
Your reaction may take many forms, and go in many different directions, but it should include each of the following:
-- at least one passage from the front or back matter,
-- at least one passage from the text of the novel itself (see the work schedule for the passages we found most noteworthy),
-- at least one term/concept from science studies (hybrids, paradigms, seeing devices, issue selection, circulating reference, black boxes, etc.), and
-- at least one term/concept from literary studies (like, high school stuff: characters, tone, narrative/narrator, language, etc.).
Don't-bore-your-friends (or your instructors) directive: when you post, do look at what's been posted already and try to add to the discussion, bringing in new passages and concepts and ideas, rather than rehashing points that've already been made. There's no shortage of material here -- be bold!
Your assignment: react to the book -- or what you've read of it thus far.
(Try to get about 300-400 pages into it before responding, to get a decent grasp of the whole. It shouldn't take too long.)
Your reaction may take many forms, and go in many different directions, but it should include each of the following:
-- at least one passage from the front or back matter,
-- at least one passage from the text of the novel itself (see the work schedule for the passages we found most noteworthy),
-- at least one term/concept from science studies (hybrids, paradigms, seeing devices, issue selection, circulating reference, black boxes, etc.), and
-- at least one term/concept from literary studies (like, high school stuff: characters, tone, narrative/narrator, language, etc.).
Don't-bore-your-friends (or your instructors) directive: when you post, do look at what's been posted already and try to add to the discussion, bringing in new passages and concepts and ideas, rather than rehashing points that've already been made. There's no shortage of material here -- be bold!
Monday, March 29, 2010
Dr Mr Pollan
I would like to say a massive (and sarcastic) thank you to michael pollan for completely making over my dining experience. I apologize for this late post due to my being a member of the U of M women's lacrosse team, we were in Georgia this past weekend, and flew home at a delightful 1 am this morning. However, this trip did serve as massive inspiration for this very blog entry
While traveling with thirty some girls it is generally regarded to be most convenient to eat on the road, because of all the typical american justifications, time crunch, cheap (ish), little personal labor involved (thus conserves energy for the games), lots of options for various preferences, etc... Normally i regard this style of fast food dining, although not practiced at home, to be acceptable on the road. But Michael Pollan has destroyed this for me, toting along The Omnivore's Dilemma was the worst possible decision for my eating habits over the trip. They say ignorance is bliss, well i am now in full agreement with that statement. Although i could ramble on and on i about my decisions of what to eat for every one of our 9 meals there i will spare you the time and select a particular moment, Wendys.
While on the road we travel in 7 passenger vans and it is ultimately each van that functions as a unit, making a decision on where to go for food, but the individuals within the van are the rational actors. I believe that our van was inline with the neoclassical economic model, making rational decisions. Reasoning was sound in that we chose our restaurant based on the following, level of hunger, price range, time (both to get there and to wait) and type of cuisine offered. However, due to Pollan, i, as a newly-informed rational actor, was now not only reasoning economically by price but also in consideration of social responsibility and utility. Wendys, the grease can be smelled from the moment we step out of the car. yum. But shit, i no longer smell the former deliciousness of cheeseburgers and nuggets, nope now i smell factory farms and lakes of toxic manure. I feel a social responsibility to oppose this factory of obesity, to refuse to give them my hard earned money, to stand up for the rights of hormone-fed cows everywhere, but then my stomach grumbles and i enter.
When consulting the menu i bombarded with processed food, everything wrapped in plastic, and practically made of oil. The employees behind the counter (with their delightful georgia twang) have virtually no part in the labor of the meals they serve, they push buttons and swipe credit cards, while the food is being engineered thousands of miles away. Yet they do labor in one important economic function, taxes, they are the grass-root enforcers of this governmental policy, in georgia there was a tax on my wendys. Ultimately i made the rational choice to forgo meat all together and instead invest in a Frostie and small french fries, with the justification being that at least i know that these are awful for my body, and neither option masquerades as healthy.
Not only where the economical factors at play within my meal selection but also ethical factors as well. I am not a vegetarian, nor am i a patron of whole foods, or an organic label advocate, but i do make an effort to have a colorful plate, hitting all the major food groups, and limiting fatty "junk" food. I was raised to eat this way, that food is necessary, but not to be used as a coping mechanism (for boredom or sadness). But it is more than this, while at home i make an effort to buy locally, farmers markets and the like, but at school this is difficult and on the road nearly impossible. Normally, i do not support the massive fast food chains, because i lean towards the kenesian principle that democracy and capitalism are incompatible, and thus ethically i side on democracy, then capitalism, in the form of big business agriculture which feeds Wendys nation wide, becomes the enemy. However, when faced with the decision of choosing democracy and forgoing my lunch, or sacrificing my values for $3.50 of trans fat, i selfishly chose the latter.
Finally the politics, i think that particularly within the fast food industry the politics surrounding food gets very messy very quickly. Primarily, because fast food is so prevalent in our culture today, in the media (billboards, news, commercials) and also literally around every corner and on almost every block. Furthermore, fast food is linked to the current obesity crisis, a hot topic today, this links it to the entire medical field, which is irrevocably connected to the insurance industry another form of big business. Let alone the fact that the food used in food chains is grown on massive agricultural farms. There are laws and bi-laws surrounding each of these elements, and together they have a massive effect on the fast food industry. Ranging from health inspections to nutrition label laws.
My wendys meal of frosty and fries would most likely not even qualify as a meal by Pollan's standards. But as you can see within this meager lunch food selection (on a sunday afternoon) my decision was affected by ethics, politics, and economics, all of these things complicating my choices. The Omnivores Dilemma.
choosing food
I used to weigh a LOT more than I do now. I now make a choice every day about the food I eat based purely on the ratio of calories, fiber, and fat, in increments of 50 calories. I eat more vegetables because the have no fat and a high ratio of fiber to calories, and are more filling than other, more calorie-dense foods. I often make this choice at the expense of my bank account, but I make it anyway because that I place a higher value on the caloric content (or lack thereof) of my food than otherwise.
However, when my boyfriend's parents came to visit and I met them for the first time, I made a choice to eat something waaaay more calorie-dense than I would have otherwise. What were my reasons?
-I wanted to appear as though I did not "obsess" about my weight/food intake
-I didn't want them to think I was a picky eater
But most of all, I didn't want to seem like I was wasting their money (they paid) by spending 10 dollars on a salad and soup instead of 10 dollars on pasta or meat. Interestingly, vegetables and fruit are considered to be (too) expensive because they are not seen as ACTUAL food. They are seen as sides, or additions, as superfluous. Therefore, in order to appear to be getting VALUE out of the money they spent, I ordered food that was less good for me, calories I didn't need.
Plus they seemed like the steak and potatoes sort. Republicans. "Salt of the earth" kind of folks. And I wanted to fit in. I didn't want them to know I was a pro-choice, healthcare reform-loving liberal. Which OBVIOUSLY a soup and salad would have revealed?
However, when my boyfriend's parents came to visit and I met them for the first time, I made a choice to eat something waaaay more calorie-dense than I would have otherwise. What were my reasons?
-I wanted to appear as though I did not "obsess" about my weight/food intake
-I didn't want them to think I was a picky eater
But most of all, I didn't want to seem like I was wasting their money (they paid) by spending 10 dollars on a salad and soup instead of 10 dollars on pasta or meat. Interestingly, vegetables and fruit are considered to be (too) expensive because they are not seen as ACTUAL food. They are seen as sides, or additions, as superfluous. Therefore, in order to appear to be getting VALUE out of the money they spent, I ordered food that was less good for me, calories I didn't need.
Plus they seemed like the steak and potatoes sort. Republicans. "Salt of the earth" kind of folks. And I wanted to fit in. I didn't want them to know I was a pro-choice, healthcare reform-loving liberal. Which OBVIOUSLY a soup and salad would have revealed?
Last week while on my routine shopping trip to Target, wandering through the grocery aisles, trying to rule out what I did and didn't really need to buy, I stopped to grab a familiar box of cheesy snacks that I realized I was starting to miss from home. Though Annie's Cheddar Bunnies aren't exactly the pinnacle of the organic foods industry, or the best possible example of virtuous eating habits, as they sit on my desk they are coming to represent something more to me and serve as a reminder of these things.
Sounds goofy, I know. But recently I've realized how drastically my eating habits have changed since I've moved out of my house--and definitely for the worse. I can't totally justify this happening by the change in circumstances and surroundings; I have to own up to the fact that to some extent I've chosen to eat less healthily. However, my setting has made a big difference, and the shift in availability of different kinds of foods has had a major impact on what and how I eat. I grew up in a house where healthy eating was stressed, especially by my mom who's a bit of health nut. Not only did both my parents eat relatively healthy and balanced diets, they both avoid buying processed foods and try to buy organic and local when they can. We bought about half our groceries at Seward Co-op and half at Rainbow, a necessary compromise because of economic constraints. It's true that organic food tends to be pricier, however, it doesn't have to be unreasonable, seeing as my parents managed to find a balance between price and quality on an income that's somewhere between working and lower middle class. To me it seems that not buying processed foods, regardless of where they come from, is a key part of this, as that seems to be where things become most overpriced.
Anyway, the point is that growing up I was surrounded by relatively healthy foods. Whatever my parents bought and cooked was what I ate, and for the most part that meant eating things that were pretty good for me. Moving out of my parents and into the dorms, a very different picture of food has been readily available to me, namely easy access to all kinds of junk that I rarely used to eat or drink. Not to say I've been totally sheltered from pop and fast food, it's definitely been a part of my diet, but is now much more prevalent. Once I realized this, I found I had a lot more conscious choices to make than I have been if I want to eat well for either myself, the environment, or both. Unfortunately my grocery shopping habits have been shaped both by environment and economics. Going to Target is cheap, easy, and fun to do with friends, not to mention convenient because you can get EVERYTHING there, but doesn't really offer me the best options for food. Next year I will be in an apartment, meaning much more groceries and cooking on my own, which presents me with both a challenge and an opportunity. My homework for myself is to find out if and how I can get and make economic, healthy, and hopefully ethical food for myself so that next year (hopefully sooner) I can start making better eating choices.
Sounds goofy, I know. But recently I've realized how drastically my eating habits have changed since I've moved out of my house--and definitely for the worse. I can't totally justify this happening by the change in circumstances and surroundings; I have to own up to the fact that to some extent I've chosen to eat less healthily. However, my setting has made a big difference, and the shift in availability of different kinds of foods has had a major impact on what and how I eat. I grew up in a house where healthy eating was stressed, especially by my mom who's a bit of health nut. Not only did both my parents eat relatively healthy and balanced diets, they both avoid buying processed foods and try to buy organic and local when they can. We bought about half our groceries at Seward Co-op and half at Rainbow, a necessary compromise because of economic constraints. It's true that organic food tends to be pricier, however, it doesn't have to be unreasonable, seeing as my parents managed to find a balance between price and quality on an income that's somewhere between working and lower middle class. To me it seems that not buying processed foods, regardless of where they come from, is a key part of this, as that seems to be where things become most overpriced.
Anyway, the point is that growing up I was surrounded by relatively healthy foods. Whatever my parents bought and cooked was what I ate, and for the most part that meant eating things that were pretty good for me. Moving out of my parents and into the dorms, a very different picture of food has been readily available to me, namely easy access to all kinds of junk that I rarely used to eat or drink. Not to say I've been totally sheltered from pop and fast food, it's definitely been a part of my diet, but is now much more prevalent. Once I realized this, I found I had a lot more conscious choices to make than I have been if I want to eat well for either myself, the environment, or both. Unfortunately my grocery shopping habits have been shaped both by environment and economics. Going to Target is cheap, easy, and fun to do with friends, not to mention convenient because you can get EVERYTHING there, but doesn't really offer me the best options for food. Next year I will be in an apartment, meaning much more groceries and cooking on my own, which presents me with both a challenge and an opportunity. My homework for myself is to find out if and how I can get and make economic, healthy, and hopefully ethical food for myself so that next year (hopefully sooner) I can start making better eating choices.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Perhaps Too Practical
When looking at what I eat I guess I can conclude that I usually try and make 'rational choices'. Rational to me, means buying food that is practical, that I will get maximum utility out of, and that is on the more healthy side, and if not, then moderated portions of it. Anytime I go to a restaurant, I try and get smaller porttions, or food that will last as left overs. I always feel really guilty when I don't finish food that I, or someone else pays for, so I either feel the need to eat it all (which can be very bad) or take it home for later. I guess this can be looked at as a good thing in some ways. I like knowing that food isn't going to waste, into a garbage can to just rot away in a dump. I also like knowing that I am getting full value for what I paid for. Even beside buying food, I have always been a practical buyer. It is hard for me to go shopping for clothes or anything that isn't necessarily needed, because I feel like I could be spending my money on something more important. Usually social settings will change this thinking, for example going out to eat with other people. If I'm by myself, I'll opt to just eat whatever I have sitting in my house.
Keynesian economics looks down upon "hoarding" or saving for no intentional later use, but especially in this ecomomy, I find it hard to believe that people save there money with no reason behind it. Whether it is to save your self from extra uneeded calories, or saving a dollar by buying something only when it goes on sale, saving can be a rational choice too.
Keynesian economics looks down upon "hoarding" or saving for no intentional later use, but especially in this ecomomy, I find it hard to believe that people save there money with no reason behind it. Whether it is to save your self from extra uneeded calories, or saving a dollar by buying something only when it goes on sale, saving can be a rational choice too.
Meat
There is something immensely satisfying about buying fresh meat. Choosing the fresh cut of your choice, to bringing it home and making something delicious makes me happy. I like meat. I could never be a vegetarian. The amount of energy and sustenance I gain from a meat filled meal is noticeable to me. Plus I just like the taste. Unfortunately, I rarely contemplate the actions that go into providing me with the meat I so readily devour. As a culture, we are completely removed from the processes that provide us the food. Besides a small few, none of us have ever slaughtered a cow, or defeathered a chicken.
It makes it almost impossible to understand the implications of our actions when we are so far removed from how it is created. However, at my cabin food is provided very differently. Often, we will buy meat from the farm down the road. We buy it because it has good meat, and because we like the people. However, if the farm was a large corporate farm where the animals were treated poorly, as a commodity rather than an actual living creature, we would probably not buy food from them. It would seem unethical. The reason why we choose the smaller farm is because we were able to see first hand where and how the meat was brought to us. Unfortunately, most meat does from large corporate farms, but since I am so far removed from it, I don't think about the ethics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)