Ranthropologist

Blog

  • Shifting Perspective: The Efficiency Trap

    Shifting Perspective: The Efficiency Trap

    A few months ago I wrote about the privilege of having the time and money to make homemade bread. I haven’t stopped thinking about the changes that have occurred in the world, and in modern capitalist culture in particular, that have made what used to be a basic daily task into something we no longer have the time and/or money to do. It’s been on my mind more heavily recently as I ventured into experiments with making my own soap. It’s not hard; on the contrary, the basic process involves simply combing sodium hydroxide (lye) and water with oil, stirring until it thickens (a process called saponification), then pouring it into a container of some sort to harden and eventually slice into bars. I mastered these basics on my first try and have now made four separate batches, all sliced and now spending a few weeks curing before they can be used. And how much money have I spent on the tools and ingredients to make this soap? At least a few hundred dollars for a digital scale (for precisely measuring proportions of lye and oil); a steel pot dedicated to soap making; a stick/immersion blender; a few thermometers (turns out the temperature of your lye water and oils is important); various oils (palm, coconut, and olive are the basics); various essential oils for scent; a container of lye; a steel soap slicer; and silicon molds so the soap has a nice uniform shape and releases easily when it’s ready for slicing (see the photo at the top of this post for some of my nice, round, molded soap). Of course, some of these are fixed costs that I won’t incur again; but the cost of the oil alone adds up fast.

    When I mentioned this new hobby/science project to my dad, he told me that Grandma G. (already chronicled for her bread making in the homemade bread post) used to make lye soap for laundry. Daddy and his siblings would take turns stirring the big pot full of cooking grease that Grandma had saved throughout the week and combined with lye. Since they weren’t lucky enough to have a stick blender to make the process quick, the kids would stir for hours until Grandma deemed the mixture thick enough to pour. This wasn’t a science experiment or a hobby; it was a household necessity if Grandma, Grandpa, and their six kids were going to have clean clothes.

    What happened to our culture that led us to eliminate homemade bread and soap from our list of things to do? It started with things like cheap bread and soap that you could buy pre-made at the store. Buying these staples instead of making them was more efficient. It made running a household easier. It freed up time. But where has that efficiency led us? Somewhere along the way, people bought into the idea, peddled by companies with something to sell, that we had better things to do than make our own bread, formulate our own soap, grow our own vegetables, make and mend our own clothes, cook nearly all of our own meals… I am tempted to go on and on with the list of things we used to do for ourselves.

    What has the efficiency of the capitalist marketplace done for us? Many good things; but when you shift your perspective back to a time when we were more self-sufficient, you might start to wonder why efficiency has ended up making us busier than ever before. We end up being grateful that we can buy soap and bread at the store now, because who has the time to make their own? (For that matter, except for people like me who are privileged to have the time and money to engage in these DIY projects, I doubt anybody is consciously grateful for the store-bought staples we now all take completely for granted.) We are happy for all the fast-food outlets and “quick casual” restaurants and the recent proliferation of online services that will deliver pre-chopped vegetables and other ingredients to your door so that if you want to make a home-cooked meal, you don’t have to waste time on prep. Cooking from scratch has become a high-status hobby – we litter our Pinterest boards with gourmet recipes and fancy tools because cooking this way is aspirational – if you can afford artisanal cheeses and locally-sourced charcuterie, and hand-craft little cards identifying them at your wine party, then you’ve made it, by God! And we forget that there was once a time when the Sunday chicken dinner was considered the luxury meal to reward a week of hard work.

    Of course, it can always be worse. Most of us are part of the significant proportion of the population that has nothing to sell but its labor. For a big majority, that means working for as low a price as your employer can squeeze out of you, which means that maybe you can’t afford to buy enough fresh groceries to cook for yourself every day or have the time for anything but a quick stop at the drive-through. If you have kids, maybe you and your spouse each work more than 40 hours a week trying to support your family, trying to achieve the American dream that is the hope of so many, the one that is built on our addiction to efficiency, the one that has led to lower wages and higher prices in the service of shareholder profit, the one that allows us to buy $20 jeans and $10 shirts and cheap jewelry that we stop wearing after a few months, the one that entices us to fill our houses and our lives with mounds of completely unnecessary things like battery-operated nose-hair trimmers and commemorative Princess Diana plates, the one that says BUY! BUY! BUY! at every turn, the one that won’t tell us that none of these things will ever truly satisfy us.

    Isn’t that really what efficiency is about? The capitalist system is based on the majority of the population selling their labor to a tiny minority that will pay them for it, and then trading that pay for the endless conveyor belt of things that we have been tricked into believing we need, as well as the things like bread and soap that we actually do need, but no longer have the time or the resources to make for ourselves. Don’t mistake me – I am not 100% anti-capitalism; in fact, I acknowledge many of the benefits of this mode of production. But the trap of efficiency is one of the drawbacks. When people controlled their own labor and were able to provide for themselves and their families without having to rely solely on wage labor, I believe society was better for it. But now it’s all about production and growing the economy, and there seem to be few, if any, alternatives. The marketplace proliferates with new products that, when you assess them objectively, are totally unnecessary – but hey, they might make our lives easier! What’s easier than having paper plates that you can throw away instead of wash? What’s easier than a pop-up paper towel dispenser in your bathroom or kitchen instead of cloth towels that you have to launder? What’s easier than having 50 pound bags of dog food delivered straight to your door so you don’t have to make a trip to the store? With all this efficiency, why does it seem that we are busier, and poorer, and more trapped, than at any other time in human history?

  • Daily Read: Ban the Box

    Daily Read: Ban the Box

    Today’s Daily Read covers a topic that I think is very important, but you don’t hear a lot about. It involves the little box on job applications asking if you’ve ever been convicted of a crime. That box was never more than a blip to me as I checked “NO” and moved on – but then I met someone who had a criminal record. This guy didn’t even serve time, yet he had a record, and so he had to check the box… and I have no doubt that it contributed to the fact that he struggled mightily to find employment, in spite of submitting a blizzard of applications over the course of several months.

    In theory, once a person has paid their debt to society for a crime, they should start with a clean slate. Obviously there are certain crimes, and certain jobs, that require more care; e.g. I can’t blame an accounting firm for not wanting to hire an embezzler. And banning the box does not mean that employers can’t ask about criminal records or run background checks. But once a person has served their time, if they are unable to find meaningful employment (by which I mean a way to support themselves, not necessarily a dream job), then what do you think the chances are that that person will stay out of trouble with the law? Obviously, being unemployed is not justification for committing a crime, but based on the experience of my friend, who only had a misdemeanor and yet had the door slammed on him again and again, I can’t imagine what the struggle is like for someone who served time for more serious crimes. If we want the system to be rehabilitative and to serve the cause of justice, then I fully support banning the box and giving folks with a record a better chance of staying out of prison.

    Pressure Mounts for Obama to Ban the Box

  • Daily Read: Food Animals

    Daily Read: Food Animals

    I’ve been working on keeping most meat out of my diet for the past six months or so. I was a full time, fairly militant vegetarian in my early twenties but gave it up for good after college. I’ve been trying again for a couple of reasons: I want to eat a healthier diet, and I am concerned about the environmental impact and ethics of factory meat farming. I am not against meat eating, but I am against the conditions that pertain in most large-scale commercial meat farms, even when they are operated under lawful conditions. Last week, I read an article that makes a cogent, if heavy-handed, argument that if you are horrified by the death of Cecil the lion but you eat factory-farmed meat, then perhaps you should examine your position on meat eating. Even though I found the article to be written in a way that is likely to provoke a defensive reaction in a lot of meat eaters, it still reinforced my conviction to keep up with my mostly vegetarian diet. I’ve been doing pretty well but I’m going to get stricter with it – for myself, for the animals, and for the earth. Maybe this article will make you think about doing something similar – even if it’s just instituting a meatless Monday habit.

    Eating chicken is morally worse than killing Cecil the lion

  • Daily Read: Mob (In)justice

    Daily Read: Mob (In)justice

    When I saw the reports about the killing of Zimbabwe’s beloved Cecil the lion, I was as disgusted as I always am when I hear about someone taking pleasure from deliberately killing an animal as a trophy. I am not opposed to all hunting, but I do find trophy hunting to be distasteful at best. So as the reactions to this particular lion’s death at the hands of US dentist Walter Palmer made the rounds of social media, I felt the same sense of sadness and moral outrage as many of my friends. Still, it wasn’t long before I became uneasy as news that the hunter’s personal information was being made public began to circulate. Known as “doxxing,” releasing personal details like work and home addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers is a method to exact a perverse form of internet mob justice.

    Writing for Vox, Max Fisher explains why the internet mob outrage over Cecil the lion is something that should make us all uneasy. Whether or not you think Walter Palmer is a scumbag for killing Cecil is irrelevant, since this form of internet vigilantism can be linked to many different controversies, including the nauseatingly misogynistic Gamergate movement, in which doxxing, threats of violence, and horrific personal attacks against women are the norm. No matter how you feel about Palmer, you should take what Fisher says in this article to heart. Internet mob justice is just the modern equivalent of the pitchforks and torches of yore – in other words, it is not justice at all. Fisher puts it well: “What Palmer did was wrong, and he deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. But it’s easy to forget just how dangerous and unjust ‘mob justice’ is while it’s targeting someone you despise. The more this behavior is normalized, the more likely it is to be deployed against targets who might not necessarily deserve to have their lives destroyed — including, perhaps one day, against you.”

    From Gamergate to Cecil the Lion: internet mob justice is out of control

  • Daily Read: Matters of Taste

    Daily Read: Matters of Taste

    If you are like me, you struggle daily with the temptation to eat food that you know isn’t good for you. I have a terrible weakness for sour cream and onion Ruffles; Mother’s taffy cookies; and just about anything chocolate, fried, or both! I have done a good amount of reading on nutrition science as it relates to obesity, and the focus is usually on the big three offenders: fat, sugar, and salt. But as we all know, fat, sugar, and salt don’t tempt us if they aren’t delivered in a package that tastes good. That’s where today’s Daily Read comes in. Julia Belluz of Vox interviews Mark Schatzker, a journalist and author of the book The Dorito Effect: The Surprising New Truth About Food and Flavor. Schatzker makes a connection that should be obvious: if it doesn’t taste good, we aren’t as tempted to eat it. And food manufacturers know this, which is why foods like the titular Doritos did not become wildly popular until they were dusted with flavor enhancers. I’m amazed that such a simple idea hasn’t garnered more attention, but the focus on fat, sugar, and salt has sucked all the air out of the room. Schatzker’s conclusions aren’t necessarily going to help me resist my cravings – I already know how good sour cream and onion Ruffles taste! – but knowing how taste affects our appetites, cravings, and choices may help us find ways to make food that’s actually good for us more palatable.

    The Dorito Effect: Healthy food is blander than ever — and it’s making us fat

  • Facts and Fauxpinions

    Facts and Fauxpinions

    A few days ago a friend linked to an article on my Facebook page and asked “is this you?” I read the article, titled “No, It’s Not Your Opinion. You’re Just Wrong,” and laughed. I laughed at first because it sounded like something I would say, and I laughed as I read the article because it made a serious point in a humorous way. This is not just a Daily Read post because I want to expand on some of the things mentioned in the article. I suggest reading it first, because the author, Jef Rouner, makes beautiful work out of distinguishing between facts and opinions. The point of this post, inspired by Rouner, is to provide a discussion of some of the critically important concepts he addresses.

    I continue to feel concerned about the availability of so much information through the internet. Our ability to do a Google search and open ourselves to a world of knowledge is a wonderful thing, but it has a dark side. I’m not going to harp on the point here since I’ve addressed it many times before, but a lot of the problem comes from an inability to distinguish between fact and fiction, truth and lies, data and anecdote, science and snake-oil. Human beings are pattern-seeking animals. We deploy motivated reasoning to justify our beliefs and choices. We are easily bamboozled by sophisticated nonsense. We are prone to a whole host of logical fallacies, a subject I’ve only barely managed to skim so far. We tend to stop cold on our quest for knowledge when we come across a source that backs up what we already want to believe, and scoff at or dismiss information that refutes our beliefs; that is, we fall prey, sometimes willingly, to confirmation bias. And we will reject the arguments of others by throwing out a few non-arguments in response: “I’m entitled to my opinion.” “I’m allowed to have my beliefs.” “I have the right to free speech.” Aside from the fact that these statements are not actually arguments but are instead information-free, knee-jerk, defensive cliches bereft of any logical content or reasoned rebuttal, they are also frequently wrong.

    To begin: an opinion is not a fact. Neither is a belief. This reiterates what Rouner says in his article, but it bears repeating: an opinion is a judgement of a fact. A fact is a verifiable truth. The earth’s existence is a fact. That the earth is round is a fact. That the earth orbits the sun is a fact. These facts have all been verified. None of them is an opinion. If someone says to you, “In my opinion, the earth is flat,” they are not actually stating an opinion; they are making a claim that the flatness of the earth is a fact. They are wrong. Opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with it. This example is obviously ridiculous, but it applies to other areas of fact. Evolution is a fact that has been verified. Yet there are plenty of people who will say that in their opinion, evolution – especially of humans – has not occurred. Again, this is not an opinion because an opinion is a judgement of something. So, you could say that in your opinion, scientists who study evolution are arrogant; but if you say that evolution, in your opinion, is wrong, you are using opinion the wrong way. You cannot substitute an opinion for a fact. If you do not think evolution occurs, then by all means marshall whatever evidence you can in support of your hypothesis, but leave your opinions out of it.

    This confusion of opinion with fact happens all the time. It tends to occur when people are unable to marshall the evidence to support their ideas, so all they can say is “Well, I’m entitled to believe that evolution didn’t happen.” But are you? Are people really entitled to dismissing known facts because it happens to not match with their ideological predilections? I sometimes wish we could do this, but it just doesn’t work: facts don’t give a shit about your opinions or your beliefs. I think that when someone rejects a fact because it is not true, in their opinion, we should call those fauxpinions.

    Related to the unsupported, non-entitled opinion is the lament that a person’s right to free speech is being suppressed by those who deign to argue with, dismiss, or ignore a person’s non-factual fauxpinions. Again, this happens when a person is unable to pull together a body of actual facts and evidence to support their side of the argument. I wish I didn’t have to point this out because it’s so achingly obvious, but somebody disagreeing with you does not constitute a violation of your freedom of speech. A debate does not constitute a free speech violation. A ban or an unfriending is not a free speech violation. A deleted comment is not a free speech violation. Someone pointing out where you may be wrong is not a free speech violation. Someone having a different opinion from you – and yes, even though I have harped on facts, it is obviously possible to have different actual opinions about a fact (e.g. different opinions on the death penalty) – is not a free speech violation. Even the loss of commenting privileges on a website, or the deleting of your account, is not a free speech violation.

    So what is a violation of freedom of speech, then? It is when the government suppresses speech. That’s it. It’s really that simple. If any government official, agency, bureau, department, et al deletes your Twitter account, then, my friend, you have experienced a violation of your freedom of speech. If Twitter deletes your account, they are not violating your free speech. They may not be justified, but Twitter, Facebook, the comment section in your local paper, your Tea Party cousin, your socialist aunt – none of these entities is obligated to listen to you or allow you to say whatever you want to say. So please, for the love of speech, do not whine about how your rights have been violated because somebody blocks or deletes or, god forbid, disagrees with your speech. You may have the right to say it, but I have the right to disagree with it, ignore it, or dismiss it.

    We all have a lot to learn online and from each other. We will all have different opinions about the facts we encounter. We will all sometimes feel dismissed or ignored by people who disagree with us. And we should all learn to back up what we say with logic and reason, avoid fauxpinions, and know the difference between facts and opinions. Our speech will be better for it.