Sorry I haven't posted anything in awhile...and unfortunately it will likely stay that way for the next two weeks as I'll be traveling around France and Spain on a Spring Break trip. I promise pictures and updates as soon as I get back!
Daniel
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Why I joined Twitter
Hello All,
Last summer, I told my friend Barber that Twitter was a sign of the apocalypse and would probably take over the world. On Wednesday, I became a genuine hypocrite and created my own account. I'm going to try to explain myself.
(ironically, my desire to defend joining twitter via an online message to a loose collection of people I communicate with primarily over the internet is just further evidence that I've sold out to the 21st century philosophy of "inundate people with your inane opinions as often as you can.")
I think two big reasons why Twitter often evokes a negative response from people are 1) They don't understand it, or 2) They understand it to be a shameless means of self-centered promotion. Unfortunately, reason number two is somewhat correct. At least, correct for a great many Twitter users. But before addressing why I think Twitter can be used in a constructive way, I think I should clear up the trouble with issue one.
Twitter is a website where you can post a message. The only rule is that the message has to be longer than 140 characters. When you post a message, everyone who is "following" you can see your messgage. It's kind of like being friends on facebook, and in fact the whole system works just like the facebook "status" system.
When you post a Twitter message, you can add a "hash tag" to the end of it. This effectively categorizes what the message is about. So, if I tweet something about electric vehicles, I add the text "#EV" to the end of my tweet. Once it has been hash-tagged, people who search "#EV" can see my tweet, along with the tweets of all the other people talking about electric vehicles. But who cares what every Joe on the internet is saying right? Well, if you give it a bit of time, you can usually identify some people who know what they're talking about, or at least have interesting ideas. Then, you sign up to follow them and receive all their tweets. This, I feel, is where Twitter has real value. Effectively, it allows regular people to receive up-to-the-minute information on a topic they care about from people who have devoted their lives to analyzing it.
What made me come around on Twitter is the view expressed to me by a classmate of mine at the University. Twitter is basically a more effective, more efficient way of doing what I (and, maybe, some of you) already do on the internet. I have a few websites I check regularly. I have some columnists or bloggers that I read. I have areas of interest that I like to get information on. With Twitter, I can aggregate a lot of this information into one place.
After trying it out for three days, I see advantages and disadvantages. Twitter has lead me to a host of interesting articles and studies that I probably never would have known about otherwise. On the flip side, it has become one more thing demanding my attention as I sit at my computer. Between following recent tweets, checking email, paying attention to facebook updates, etc., I feel like I'm approaching the thin line between "well-connected" and "addicted to information." Furthermore, Twitter may simplify the information aggregation process, but it also lets choose, very specifically, what information you're getting. I worry that I, and others who may increasing get content mostly through Twitter, will lose the valuable ability to be subjected to alternative opinions. If I follow people talking about renewable energy, for instance, then I'm likely to get a pretty constant stream of "good news" tweets pointing me to this success story or that breakthrough. I'm less likely to see negative analyses or hear naysayers. Twitter, if not used carefully, can certain contribute to the "echo chamber" effect that people describe when one gets all their content from sources that are ideologically similar to themselves.
I'm gonna stick with Twitter. Maybe it will keep me more up-to-date on topics I care about, maybe I just can't refuse another information pipeline. Probably both. Just one piece of advice: if you take the Twitter plunge as a means of enriching your intellectual life, avoid tweets from user DanielHoCo.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Diet-ribe
One of my very best college friends, Ruffles, has a habit of getting completely engrossed in certain activities. Some might say to the point of obsession. One month it might be playing guitar, the next two it will be meditation, and then it will be poker. As part of this pursuit, he seeks to gain as much knowledge as he can about the activity, including all the theoretical background behind excelling at it. I remember during sophomore year, he spent hour after hour watching internet clips of the best Super Smash Bros. videogame players in order to learn how to perfect complicated moves.
Beginning during senior year, and continuing since his graduation, Ruffles embarked on a new quest: eating healthy. While undeniably a more worthwhile pursuit than Super Smash Bros., he has approached it in much the same way: absorb as much theory as possible and then identify the expert or experts he believes have the right ideas, and follow them. The result: Ruffles has embraced a form of what is often called the "Paleodiet." With apologies to Loren Cordain, the Weston Price Foundation and all the other proponents Ruffles encourages me to read, its basic dietary principle is this: eat like people did before agriculture. Or, at the very least, before commercial agriculture. That translates to a diet high in animal protein and vegetables, and low in sugar and carbohydrates. Raw milk and wild game are in, bread and beans are out.
There are good and bad things about the paleodiet. I could (if I wanted to expend a lot of effort) give you an exhaustive list of peer-reviewed studies analyzing the health ramifications of the lipid hypothesis, saturated fat, antinutrients and complex carbohydrates. Personally, I think that while some aspects of the paleodiet are intriguing (and it is certainly romantic to imagine returning to our hunter-gather roots) its benefits are unproven. But I think that ultimately, it's beside the point and doesn't offer help to anyone trying to eat healthily.
What gets lost in all the arguments about the various nutritional properties of this protein or that enzyme is the big picture: We live on a planet containing 6 billion people that are steadily getting less healthy. If you live in America, "less healthy" probably means obese and cancer-ridden. If you live in Zimbabwe, it probably means starving and tuberculosis-ridden. What we eat is far from the only thing making us this way, but it definitely plays a big role. And with a problem on this scale, doesn't it make more sense that the flaw lies less in caloric ratios then in our food production system?
Advocates of very specific diets are fond of citing different "native" populations that subsist almost entirely on diets high in their nutrient of choice, like Eskimos on animal protein or South Indians on carbs. They always mention how low their rates of cancer, heart disease, etc. are. What recieves less attention is, in my opinion, the biggest difference between us and them: these peoples aren't getting their food chemically treated, plastic wrapped and shipped around the world. It's pretty simple: if you can find it nearby in nature, and you prepare it yourself, it's probably gonna be good for you.
My expert of choice in the crazy food debate is Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, In Defense of Food, and Food Rules. His basic premise is what I've been driving at above: eat local, natural things that you've actually had to put thought and effort into finding and preparing. And while the words "thought" and "effort" strike fear into everyone's heart (including mine), consider that the way we eat right now is arguably a cause of such well-publicized crises as health care, energy/environment, and even jobs. Just in case you needed some extra pressure next time you go to the grocery store.
Beginning during senior year, and continuing since his graduation, Ruffles embarked on a new quest: eating healthy. While undeniably a more worthwhile pursuit than Super Smash Bros., he has approached it in much the same way: absorb as much theory as possible and then identify the expert or experts he believes have the right ideas, and follow them. The result: Ruffles has embraced a form of what is often called the "Paleodiet." With apologies to Loren Cordain, the Weston Price Foundation and all the other proponents Ruffles encourages me to read, its basic dietary principle is this: eat like people did before agriculture. Or, at the very least, before commercial agriculture. That translates to a diet high in animal protein and vegetables, and low in sugar and carbohydrates. Raw milk and wild game are in, bread and beans are out.
There are good and bad things about the paleodiet. I could (if I wanted to expend a lot of effort) give you an exhaustive list of peer-reviewed studies analyzing the health ramifications of the lipid hypothesis, saturated fat, antinutrients and complex carbohydrates. Personally, I think that while some aspects of the paleodiet are intriguing (and it is certainly romantic to imagine returning to our hunter-gather roots) its benefits are unproven. But I think that ultimately, it's beside the point and doesn't offer help to anyone trying to eat healthily.
What gets lost in all the arguments about the various nutritional properties of this protein or that enzyme is the big picture: We live on a planet containing 6 billion people that are steadily getting less healthy. If you live in America, "less healthy" probably means obese and cancer-ridden. If you live in Zimbabwe, it probably means starving and tuberculosis-ridden. What we eat is far from the only thing making us this way, but it definitely plays a big role. And with a problem on this scale, doesn't it make more sense that the flaw lies less in caloric ratios then in our food production system?
Advocates of very specific diets are fond of citing different "native" populations that subsist almost entirely on diets high in their nutrient of choice, like Eskimos on animal protein or South Indians on carbs. They always mention how low their rates of cancer, heart disease, etc. are. What recieves less attention is, in my opinion, the biggest difference between us and them: these peoples aren't getting their food chemically treated, plastic wrapped and shipped around the world. It's pretty simple: if you can find it nearby in nature, and you prepare it yourself, it's probably gonna be good for you.
My expert of choice in the crazy food debate is Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, In Defense of Food, and Food Rules. His basic premise is what I've been driving at above: eat local, natural things that you've actually had to put thought and effort into finding and preparing. And while the words "thought" and "effort" strike fear into everyone's heart (including mine), consider that the way we eat right now is arguably a cause of such well-publicized crises as health care, energy/environment, and even jobs. Just in case you needed some extra pressure next time you go to the grocery store.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)