Ranthropologist

Category: Daily Reads

  • Daily Read: Naturally Toxic

    Daily Read: Naturally Toxic

    I’ve been meaning to write a post about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and why I have no problem with them for a while, but I haven’t done it because I know so many people who are anti-GMO and I’m not yet ready to step on that particular landmine. That said, I am getting increasingly alarmed at the new trend towards “natural” labeling of foods because I recognize it for what it is: greenwashing in the service of the profit motive. The lionizing of the “natural” label reveals a common logical fallacy that I have yet to write about: the naturalistic fallacy. I promise I’ll write more about it, but in summary, this is the fallacy that leads people to believe that if something is natural, it is better for them. This is absurd; it only takes a few moments of reflection to realize that a natural substance like, say, rattlesnake venom is not exactly good for you. The flip side to this is the assumption that if something has been altered by human intervention, it is bad for you. I suspect people who have survived diseases like cancer because of modern medical treatments would beg to differ.

    This is a long introduction to today’s Daily Read, brought to us by Yvette d’Entremont (previously featured in this Daily Read). D’Entremont tackles the idea of natural automatically being better by discussing recent decisions by chains like Chipotle and Panera to remove certain ingredients from their foods. The article is packed with links if you want more information, but it’s a good start all by itself. The upshot here is that it is misleading to slap the “natural” label on a food, and there is no harm from leaving in the ingredients that have been demonized with the “chemical” label. The greater harm comes from fooling people into thinking that natural is automatically better – and from companies using this fallacy to promote their products as being better than they really are.

    The Bullshit Hypocrisy of “All-Natural” Foods

  • Daily Read: Sharing Anger

    Daily Read: Sharing Anger

    A few weeks ago I shared a video Daily Read that discussed why getting angry with people who disagree with you is a sure-fire way to get them to dig in their heels about their side of the argument. The video offered some great insight into how to have calm discussions with people that are more likely to get them to think about their position – and yours – rather than erupting in rage. Today I have another short video called “This Video Will Make  You Angry” that discusses why sharing videos or other online content can cause us to get so angry in the first place. The video’s narrator calls these shared ideas “thought germs,” but he’s essentially using the original concept of memes (which didn’t used to mean a funny picture with a customized caption – it originally meant an idea or bit of culture that spreads from person to person and was coined by Richard Dawkins). The video argues that thought germs that make us angry are more successful because they are more likely to spread and be reinforced. It’s a fascinating video with some thought-provoking ideas, and it helped reinforce my growing knowledge that getting mad is getting us nowhere.

  • Daily Reads: Race, Riots, and Context

    Daily Reads: Race, Riots, and Context

    In light of the riots in Baltimore in response to the death of Freddie Gray at the hands of Baltimore police, I offer this article by Conor Friedersdorf. Writing in The Atlantic, Friedersdorf condemns the violence while urging that the state-sanctioned violence perpetrated by police against Baltimore residents – particularly those of color – be addressed with the same urgency, indignation, and self-righteousness. Sadly, our attention is easily diverted from the underlying causes of the violence by context-free sound bites and video feeds, or by the actions of a single mother dragging her son away from the scene. Friedersdorf includes quotes from Martin Luther King that, to me, say it all, with this as the kicker: ” I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt.” Friedersdorf reflects King by concluding “that riots are to be condemned; that they are inextricably bound up with injustices perpetrated by the state; and that it is a moral imperative for us to condemn both sorts of violence.”

    Two States of Emergency in Baltimore

  • Daily Reads: Food Logic

    Daily Reads: Food Logic

    Lack of critical thinking about food has long been one of my biggest peeves. I rant to my students every semester about why they shouldn’t worry about gluten unless they have celiac disease; that the paleo diet is based on pseudoscientific reasoning about human evolution; and why their blood type has nothing to do with what kind of food they should eat. So I truly appreciate today’s Daily Read from Alan Levinovitz. Writing for Slate, Levinovitz compares diet fads to religions and laments the fact that no amount of facts and logic will dissuade people from their uncritical faith in charlatans like Dr. Oz and the Food Babe. He deconstructs how these folks make abundant use of sophisticated nonsense to manipulate people and scare them into compliance with their absurd dictates about “unnatural” foods and insidious “chemicals” and “toxins.” Levinovitz sounds pretty discouraged about the possibility of changing people’s minds; yet he ends by making a compelling argument for improving people’s critical thinking skills by educating them about such persuasive techniques and logical fallacies. Perhaps there is hope yet.

    The Logical Failures of Food Fads

  • Daily Reads: Almond Joy

    Daily Reads: Almond Joy

    California is experiencing a severe drought, so severe that Governor Jerry Brown recently mandated 25% cuts in water use for individuals and businesses throughout the state. Those cuts did not include agricultural users. Many people are upset that farmers are escaping the restrictions, and they have turned their ire on a specific crop: almonds. It turns out that almonds are a very thirsty crop, with a single nut requiring a gallon of water to produce.Mother Jonesled the charge against almonds in July 2014 when they published an article snarkily titled “Lay Off the Almond Milk, You Ignorant Hipsters.” This article was my first introduction to the economics of almonds, and I immediately agreed that almonds are a wasteful crop to produce during times of such drastic drought – though I have to admit I didn’t stop eating them (I have never had almond milk and I’m not eager to try it regardless of the drought). Now, with the new water restrictions, almonds are the target of people who believe that a crop that uses up to 10% of California’s agricultural water should give way to more drought-tolerant, sustainable crops. Yet, it turns out that there is more nuance to the business of almonds than just their thirstiness and value to the state economy. Today’s two Daily Reads address both sides of the almond debate. One article, from CUESA (Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture), highlights the value of almonds and points out that they can be sustainably managed by small farmers. The second is an article from Mother Jones responding to several arguments that almonds really aren’t that bad. I invite you to read both, as well as the other articles I linked to, and draw your own conclusions; but as for me, I still think there are better ways to use our agricultural water than to grow a water-intensive crop that is mostly destined for overseas markets.

    Making Every Drop Count

    Here’s the Real Problem with Almonds

  • Daily Read: Fundamentalist Atheism

    Daily Read: Fundamentalist Atheism

    Today’s Daily Read is a perfect follow-up to my post from yesterday on religion. Mary Elizabeth Williams says what a lot of atheists like me are thinking when she takes Bill Maher to task for his particular brand of fundamentalist, militant atheism. Writing in Salon, Williams points out that Maher does a grave disservice to his cause when he applies blanket generalizations to religious practices and characterizes them all as worthy of contempt. She is right to call Maher an intolerant bigot. Williams is a Christian, and she makes clear that her Christianity does not make her an extremist or an idiot – and the same is true of the followers of many religions. Maher errs by lumping all believers into the same category. I completely agree with Williams. As I said in yesterday’s post, I think it’s ideology, not religion, that is truly the root of so much sociopolitical and cultural conflict in the world; religion is just the frame that justifies the ideology. You don’t have to believe in the supernatural to believe that your way of life is the correct way. My atheism has not caused me to turn my back on the values of my culture. Most atheists are good people with strong moral codes – just like most Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Atheists like Maher only serve to make us look just as bad as the fundamentalists of any religion, and I wish he would shut up and go away.

    Bill Maher’s bigoted atheism: His arrogant shtick is just as ugly as religious intolerance