Wednesday, 6 March 2013
What Daniell likes to read
I like to read travel magazines. That's because I like travelling. I have a strong curious about different culture. I want to know what amazing lives different people lead. Travel magazine usually contains many interesting finding of people when they are travelling. The first travel magazine I bought is Traveler. One of the most attractive articles is about the experience in Bali. The article tells about surfing, diving, sight seeing and many gorgeous activities in Bali.
What Poom Likes to Read
I like to read about restaurant and cuisine. I enjoy eating because good food makes me feel happy. Food is not just only the taste but it is also an art. Dish decoration is important since it represents how the chef cook food and shows the intention of the chef. Actually I am a bookworm, so I prefer to see food photos or food album in the review blog which there are many comments and ideas from different people.
What Bar Like To Read
I like to read science. Especially, scientific magazine including Popular Machine and American scientists. I have been interested by this kind of field for a long time, probably since I became an engineer student. I think this kind of magazine not only make me develop my critical knowledge that I have learnt from the university but also make my perspectives of my career broader. I addition I have been practicing along with this kinds of magazine because it quite fascinating to me to read and I never get bored by such this things.What is more, I think the most interesting part of these books which I've been love to read since I was a child is some experiments which are so much fun.
What Ting likes to read
I like to read detective stories since I was a teenager. I think those stories can makes me understand what reality works and what comes around and goes around. For example, there are some signal in the beginning and the stories goes more attractive, it helps you thinking who is the murderer or what is true. In that case , it helps you think more deeply why will it happened.
What Peter Likes to Read
I like to read about science. I have been fascinated by science since I was in primary school. At first, it was botany. I used to love the pictures of plants in gardens in my mother's magazines. The cacti especially got my interest. They were totally unlike anything we had around my own home. This soon led to my reading the text that went with the pictures, and a lot of the plants had exotic names. There were the roses and tulips, but also names like rhododendron, aspidistra, and the like. By the time I got to high school, my interests had expanded from botany to biology generally, and I loved reading the lessons in my heavy science books about the workings of bodies and cells. Again, they were filled with wonderful words such as photosynthesis, stomata, phyla, abiogenesis, and mesozoic. I used to have a one hour bus trip to and from school, and most of that time I spend buried in my science books. I guess I was a bit of a nerd.
But biology led naturally, via cell mechanisms, to chemistry, and after a brief fascination with the elements and doing fun things with sodium in the chemistry lab, I moved on to physics, with which I've had a more abiding interest, although evolutionary biology, and more recently neuro-science, have came strongly back into my areas of interest. And since mathematics goes to naturally, or necessarily, with physics, I quickly came to love that as well. I don't read mathematics much these days, but that another stage on my path to philosophy, to which I came via logic and metaphysics. I don't much read metaphysics these days, preferring physics or other sciences, but logic is an area that still interests me, and was a major area of study at university.
But biology led naturally, via cell mechanisms, to chemistry, and after a brief fascination with the elements and doing fun things with sodium in the chemistry lab, I moved on to physics, with which I've had a more abiding interest, although evolutionary biology, and more recently neuro-science, have came strongly back into my areas of interest. And since mathematics goes to naturally, or necessarily, with physics, I quickly came to love that as well. I don't read mathematics much these days, but that another stage on my path to philosophy, to which I came via logic and metaphysics. I don't much read metaphysics these days, preferring physics or other sciences, but logic is an area that still interests me, and was a major area of study at university.
What Pin Likes to Read
I like to read health magazine and historical or bigraphy book whenever I have free time. I think it is good to know about the background of where we live so history is important to me. Also I like the famous people biogarphy such as Barack Obama, Ongsan Zukye who live and fight for Burma democracy until now or Kanthe who was a leader of India to fight for India independence from England at those day. Sometime I like to read a short English stor or novel for encouraging my English vocabulary. However, I usuallyread variety article on internet such as BBC.news.com or CNN.com. Moreover,when I need to wait for something such as a freind meeting or the train, reading traveling magazine it helps me to relax or never getting bored.
What Peace Likes to Read
I liked to read about the bibliography of famous ancient scientists when I was young. I bought many books related to this topic; even though, the content were pretty the same. I kept reading without any boredom. I was sure that when anyone asked me about the scientists, I could immediately tell what he or she did and discovered. Nevertheless, I hardly recall them these days.
However, my preference changes when I've grown up. Now, I like to read about the know-how book. For example, how to make a dress and how to make a cup cake. I think it's a good idea to do those things on my own. It's very interesting when I see the results which I call master pieces since there is only one of a kind.
What Ploy likes to read?
I like to read about foods. I like to cook and creating new recipes. Now, the new trend of food is healthy food. Many people, especially actors and actress, they change the way they think about foods. They concern about foods more than before such as the calories, the nutrition in foods, and the amount of protein, carbohydrate, sodium and sugar that contain in foods. People want their personal appearance look more healthier and happier.
Normally, I am not the good reader, but I like to look pictures in the book or website. The picture of foods is very passion.
Unnatural Practices
Is being natural a good thing or a bad thing? Is being abnormal a good or bad thing? And how do these questions relate to what most would probably agree is on the minds of most people rather a lot: sex.
Mainly through citing the ideas of others, Tom de Castella examines the case for and against religiously motivated celibacy among Catholics and Buddhists in "Is it even possible to live a celibate life?". Against a life without sex is that it is highly abnormal and likely leads to dishonesty as priests, monks and others inevitably lie about masturbating, while those favouring it argue that it allows for a stronger commitment to religious principles.
This story, like so many recently, responds to the ongoing scandal amongst Catholic priests and bishops, who have long had a nasty habit of abusing children trusted to their care. In the past, their undeserved respect and censorship kept these evils secret, but today the truth is rightly being told and the religion's leaders are getting the contempt and criticism that they deserve. One regularly repeated idea is that much of this abuse of the vulnerable and weak in society, especially children, results from the religious rule that followers of the religion must be celibate; that is, that they not have sex, not with anyone, not ever, and that they not even masturbate. I'm not sure if it's true or not, since establishing the truth requires research which I don't think has yet been done, but it is certainly plausible that such unnatural rules do lead men who have serious psychological problems or social issues to join: as Buddhist Vishvapani, who is himself sensibly married, tells us that "in a less-than-tolerant society many gay people might choose the priesthood" (as cited in de Castella, 2013). And if there is a disproportionately large number of such men present, it is hardly surprising that they abuse their position and power in society to harm the weak and innocent, especially when social custom gives them great respect, which the ugly facts are increasingly proving to be wholly undeserved respect.
But even when not leading to physical abuse, such religious injunctions against sex that does not harm the self or others causes great harm. I remember suffering awful guilt as a young teenager because it was biologically impossible to follow the unnatural and abnormal teachings of my religion. Thankfully, I soon reached an age of reason and gave up the religion, but it had done a lot of harm with its immoral teachings against nature, against reason and against justice. I think people should be free to practise any religious belief they like, but not to force others to do it, and not to practice beliefs that harm others. Just because something happens to be a part of an ancient and traditional religion does not, and cannot, make it right, reasonable or good for human beings. And whilst religions do have some very good points, we should not overlook or excuse their bad points.
What I actually wanted to talk about was the value of being natural compared to being unnatural - that's why I wrote that title, "Unnatural Practices", at the top of this post. The common religious attitude to sex shows that being unnatural can be very harmful to human beings and societies. But I'm not sure that following what is natural is always a good thing either. Is something good just because it's natural? No. And sex does give good examples of this. Rape is very natural for men, and it is certainly evil. So too are stealing, lying and the like all perfectly natural activities, and they are all wrong. Opium and cocaine are also very natural, but I'm not sure that makes them very good for us either. On the other hand, modern medicines tend to be very unnatural, and also extremely good for us.
Perhaps whether something is natural or not is irrelevant to it's value and goodness?
de Castella, T. (2013, March 5). Is it even possible to live a celibate life? BBC News Magazine. Retrieved March 6, 2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21654663
Mainly through citing the ideas of others, Tom de Castella examines the case for and against religiously motivated celibacy among Catholics and Buddhists in "Is it even possible to live a celibate life?". Against a life without sex is that it is highly abnormal and likely leads to dishonesty as priests, monks and others inevitably lie about masturbating, while those favouring it argue that it allows for a stronger commitment to religious principles.
This story, like so many recently, responds to the ongoing scandal amongst Catholic priests and bishops, who have long had a nasty habit of abusing children trusted to their care. In the past, their undeserved respect and censorship kept these evils secret, but today the truth is rightly being told and the religion's leaders are getting the contempt and criticism that they deserve. One regularly repeated idea is that much of this abuse of the vulnerable and weak in society, especially children, results from the religious rule that followers of the religion must be celibate; that is, that they not have sex, not with anyone, not ever, and that they not even masturbate. I'm not sure if it's true or not, since establishing the truth requires research which I don't think has yet been done, but it is certainly plausible that such unnatural rules do lead men who have serious psychological problems or social issues to join: as Buddhist Vishvapani, who is himself sensibly married, tells us that "in a less-than-tolerant society many gay people might choose the priesthood" (as cited in de Castella, 2013). And if there is a disproportionately large number of such men present, it is hardly surprising that they abuse their position and power in society to harm the weak and innocent, especially when social custom gives them great respect, which the ugly facts are increasingly proving to be wholly undeserved respect.
But even when not leading to physical abuse, such religious injunctions against sex that does not harm the self or others causes great harm. I remember suffering awful guilt as a young teenager because it was biologically impossible to follow the unnatural and abnormal teachings of my religion. Thankfully, I soon reached an age of reason and gave up the religion, but it had done a lot of harm with its immoral teachings against nature, against reason and against justice. I think people should be free to practise any religious belief they like, but not to force others to do it, and not to practice beliefs that harm others. Just because something happens to be a part of an ancient and traditional religion does not, and cannot, make it right, reasonable or good for human beings. And whilst religions do have some very good points, we should not overlook or excuse their bad points.
What I actually wanted to talk about was the value of being natural compared to being unnatural - that's why I wrote that title, "Unnatural Practices", at the top of this post. The common religious attitude to sex shows that being unnatural can be very harmful to human beings and societies. But I'm not sure that following what is natural is always a good thing either. Is something good just because it's natural? No. And sex does give good examples of this. Rape is very natural for men, and it is certainly evil. So too are stealing, lying and the like all perfectly natural activities, and they are all wrong. Opium and cocaine are also very natural, but I'm not sure that makes them very good for us either. On the other hand, modern medicines tend to be very unnatural, and also extremely good for us.
Perhaps whether something is natural or not is irrelevant to it's value and goodness?
__________
Reference
Monday, 4 March 2013
More horse please, we're French
In all the fuss about horsemeat being fed to unsuspecting meatball eaters and others, it's perhaps easy to forget that horse is one of the animals that human beings have traditionally eaten, along with probably every other animal species without exception.
According to Hugh Schofield, writing in "Paris Chefs Kickstart a Horsemeat Gastro-trend", the French decline in horsemeat eating, a relatively recent cultural characteristic which may have been born largely of necessity, is stabilising and may even be enjoying a resurgence in popularity based on taste and health considerations (2013).
Apart from Schofield's main idea, that the tradition of eating horse in France is not about to die out this week, there were a couple of points that interested me. First is the quotation that concludes the story: "Why should I care that it is a horse? We eat chickens, we eat cuddly rabbits and baby lambs. What's the difference?" (2013) And he is right. In Australia, kangaroo has long been an increasingly popular meat. This has sometimes surprised my friends who wonder how we can gobble up our national symbol, but it tastes good, is at least as healthy as beef, and there is no shortage of kangaroos hopping around the place. I usually have a kangaroo steak on my annual visit back. Emu, which features in the Australian coat of arms along with the kangaroo, is also eaten, though it's not so common, probably because of the higher cost, or maybe giant chickens just don't appeal to so many. The koala, that lazy and useless eater of leaves, has not made the menu, apparently because its taste isn't very pleasant, which is hardly surprising given it's extremely restricted diet of eucalyptus leaves. Koalas are also rather smelly and unpleasant animals, but cute from a distance. My brother has them on his property, and the young nieces and nephews do still like to do some spotting of this iconic Australian animal when they visit. One of the highlights of my modest book collection is an old copy of the classic cookery book Larousse Gastronomique, which contains a recipe for elephant trunk soup. But it's very hard to find elephants or elephant meat in Australia.
One of the other points that interested me is that argued by chef Otis Lebert, who points out that putting horse on the menu also ensures survival of the species. Perhaps if the taste for rhino could be cultivated so that those animals had greater economic value, they would be saved from extinction? If an animal has some value to human producers, they do tend to breed and protect that animal: cows, pigs, chickens and sheep are in no danger of extinction precisely because so many humans work hard to breed and protect them from poachers. It's hard to understand why anyone would think rhino horn had any medicinal value, but even such a false and unfounded cultural belief, perfectly idiotic in fact, could perhaps be turned to benefitting those endangered animals rather than threatening them as it does at present with laws that make rhinoceros breeding and protection for profit illegal. But of course, many laws that are made up are both irrational and unjust.
Schofield, H. (2013, March 4). Paris chefs kickstart a horsemeat gastro-trend. BBC News Magazine. Retrieved March 4, 2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21324523
According to Hugh Schofield, writing in "Paris Chefs Kickstart a Horsemeat Gastro-trend", the French decline in horsemeat eating, a relatively recent cultural characteristic which may have been born largely of necessity, is stabilising and may even be enjoying a resurgence in popularity based on taste and health considerations (2013).
 |
| Australia's tasty coat of arms |
One of the other points that interested me is that argued by chef Otis Lebert, who points out that putting horse on the menu also ensures survival of the species. Perhaps if the taste for rhino could be cultivated so that those animals had greater economic value, they would be saved from extinction? If an animal has some value to human producers, they do tend to breed and protect that animal: cows, pigs, chickens and sheep are in no danger of extinction precisely because so many humans work hard to breed and protect them from poachers. It's hard to understand why anyone would think rhino horn had any medicinal value, but even such a false and unfounded cultural belief, perfectly idiotic in fact, could perhaps be turned to benefitting those endangered animals rather than threatening them as it does at present with laws that make rhinoceros breeding and protection for profit illegal. But of course, many laws that are made up are both irrational and unjust.
__________
Reference
Sunday, 3 March 2013
Always the same. How sad. And bad.
Growing up in a traditional (sort of) Catholic Italian family in Australia, I used to love the show that was church: we had gorgeous robes in rich colours, fragrant incense, lots of statues and paintings, and the best music. I've wondered ever since his election as supreme ruler whether the now ex-pope, Benedict XVI, did not really like it for the same reasons.
The BBC News article "Pope Benedict XVI formally resigns to become 'pilgrim' " (2013) reports on the ceremony surrounding his final day as pope of Benedict XVI, who will keep that name with the new title pope emeritus. According to the article, Benedict has promised to cooperate and support fully his successor, who must deal with various scandals that have damaged the Catholic church in recent years.
When Benedict was elected as pope of the world's billion plus Catholics eight years ago, the first thing that impressed me was that he seemed to love dressing up. Popes have always worn expensive, colourful robes to impress people with their wealth and power, but Benedict seemed to love the colours and the rich silks, linens, brocade, and heavy embroidery simply for its beauty and the fun of dressing up in it. To be honest, he reminded me of the exuberant party goers at Sydney's famous Gay Lesbian Mardi Gras parade. I haven't attended that for more than twenty five years now, but when I was at university and living in Sydney, I didn't miss it. The costumes of the queens, dykes and others were amazing. And like Benedict, it was a display of joy. I might be wrong about Benedict, but as pope he pretty much had the power to do whatever he wanted, and dressing up in colourful outfits with lots of gold trim and white fur seemed to be what he wanted and enjoyed.
Some might think it's a bit disrespectful to compare the traditional head of one of the world's most ancient and largest religions with the sex charged participants in a gay and lesbian mega-party, but I don't agree. I might be wrong about Benedict's motives for dressing up, but by stating the idea, it means it can be treated seriously and either supported or shown to be wrong. What is disrespectful is to say nothing that might be negative - that is disrespectful because it treats the subject as something unsuitable for human discussion, reason and knowledge. Pretending it does not exist or only half exists so that only certain types of comments can be made seems to me more truly disrespectful. Saying something that some might dislike or strongly disagree with is not disrespectful because it treats the topic as something that matters - and that is not showing disrespect.
However, like Australia's Cardinal Pell, I do think that there are problems with Benedict and his church ("Pope Benedict XVI", 2013, Beset by scandals sect.). Cardinal Pell thinks the problem is that Benedict might not have been the best leader, but I think the problems are much more serious: a lot of Catholic teaching, Christian beliefs, and religious teachings generally, are immoral and cause great harm to people and society. For example, the Catholic church's opposition to abortion and even birth control such as condoms, continues to cause great harm to pregnant women in many countries where abortion remains illegal, often with the strong support of the Catholic church, and Benedict has always strongly supported these seriously unjust laws that condemn women, especially teenage girls who might still be in school, to have children that they do not want and cannot properly care for, who lead miserable lives after birth, and who then go on to commit much crime and cause further harm to societies. The pope is completely wrong on this and many other moral issues. And his errors lead to very real suffering for many people and society.
I'm hoping that the next pope will make some changes, but because the Catholic church is so anti-democratic it is very hard to change the awful and deadly traditions of centuries and millenia, however bad those ancient traditions are. As Benedict said on his final day in office: "the Church ... remains always the same" ("Pope Benedict XVI", 2013, Beset by scandals sect., ¶ 3).
Pope Benedict XVI formally resigns to become 'pilgrim'. (2013, March 1). BBC News Europe. Retrieved March 3, 2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21624149
The BBC News article "Pope Benedict XVI formally resigns to become 'pilgrim' " (2013) reports on the ceremony surrounding his final day as pope of Benedict XVI, who will keep that name with the new title pope emeritus. According to the article, Benedict has promised to cooperate and support fully his successor, who must deal with various scandals that have damaged the Catholic church in recent years.
When Benedict was elected as pope of the world's billion plus Catholics eight years ago, the first thing that impressed me was that he seemed to love dressing up. Popes have always worn expensive, colourful robes to impress people with their wealth and power, but Benedict seemed to love the colours and the rich silks, linens, brocade, and heavy embroidery simply for its beauty and the fun of dressing up in it. To be honest, he reminded me of the exuberant party goers at Sydney's famous Gay Lesbian Mardi Gras parade. I haven't attended that for more than twenty five years now, but when I was at university and living in Sydney, I didn't miss it. The costumes of the queens, dykes and others were amazing. And like Benedict, it was a display of joy. I might be wrong about Benedict, but as pope he pretty much had the power to do whatever he wanted, and dressing up in colourful outfits with lots of gold trim and white fur seemed to be what he wanted and enjoyed.
Some might think it's a bit disrespectful to compare the traditional head of one of the world's most ancient and largest religions with the sex charged participants in a gay and lesbian mega-party, but I don't agree. I might be wrong about Benedict's motives for dressing up, but by stating the idea, it means it can be treated seriously and either supported or shown to be wrong. What is disrespectful is to say nothing that might be negative - that is disrespectful because it treats the subject as something unsuitable for human discussion, reason and knowledge. Pretending it does not exist or only half exists so that only certain types of comments can be made seems to me more truly disrespectful. Saying something that some might dislike or strongly disagree with is not disrespectful because it treats the topic as something that matters - and that is not showing disrespect.
However, like Australia's Cardinal Pell, I do think that there are problems with Benedict and his church ("Pope Benedict XVI", 2013, Beset by scandals sect.). Cardinal Pell thinks the problem is that Benedict might not have been the best leader, but I think the problems are much more serious: a lot of Catholic teaching, Christian beliefs, and religious teachings generally, are immoral and cause great harm to people and society. For example, the Catholic church's opposition to abortion and even birth control such as condoms, continues to cause great harm to pregnant women in many countries where abortion remains illegal, often with the strong support of the Catholic church, and Benedict has always strongly supported these seriously unjust laws that condemn women, especially teenage girls who might still be in school, to have children that they do not want and cannot properly care for, who lead miserable lives after birth, and who then go on to commit much crime and cause further harm to societies. The pope is completely wrong on this and many other moral issues. And his errors lead to very real suffering for many people and society.
I'm hoping that the next pope will make some changes, but because the Catholic church is so anti-democratic it is very hard to change the awful and deadly traditions of centuries and millenia, however bad those ancient traditions are. As Benedict said on his final day in office: "the Church ... remains always the same" ("Pope Benedict XVI", 2013, Beset by scandals sect., ¶ 3).
__________
Reference
Saturday, 2 March 2013
Unnaturally communicative
One of my earliest academic loves was biology, which began when I was around 10 years old. My fascination soon moved on to other academic areas, but a deep interest in philosophy of mind and behaviour, among others, has kept me interested in brains and how they work, even if I've had nothing to do with rats since my early high school science days. But "One rat brain 'talks' to another using electronic link" again reminds me of how useful rats are as we explore and deepen our understanding of ourselves.
In this article, Jen Whyntie reports on the success of recent research which has extended brain-to-machine communication to brain-to-brain communication between rats (2013). Whyntie notes that this research, using implanted electrodes to gather signals from one brain which are then send to another brain using electrodes embedded in the same region, has also raised questions about what might one day soon be possible for humans and about the moral issues involved.
I was actually as amazed to learn that scientists could now use "electrodes in the part of the rat's brain that processes tactile information" to enable a "rat to 'touch' infrared light" (¶ 7). What, I wonder, does it feel like to "touch" infrared light? What does it feel like to "touch" rather than see the visual part of the light spectrum that is so very useful to us in our daily lives? And that reminded me of a very famous philosophy essay by Thomas Nagel: "What Is it Like to Be a Bat?", in which the author argues against a purely materialist conception of conscious awareness (1974). I remember reading with fascination this short but influential essay in my late teens, thrilled at how smoothly Nagel develops his argument step by step. Not many years later I decided that Nagel was wrong, but his wrong ideas are still brilliant and well worth studying, as are the equally wrong ideas in his latest book, published last year, where he continues to argue that the modern scientific reduction of all things ultimately to physics via chemistry via biology, especially Darwinian evolution, must be deeply flawed (2012). His Mind and Cosmos is again a great piece of thinking with many ideas that deserve and demand answers, but I'm sure that the flaws are more with Nagel than with modern science and its ever deeper and more comprehensive explanation of both the universe we inhabit and ourselves.
Naturally, or perhaps very unnaturally, the imminent prospect of linking my brain directly to that of another human being also opens up some amazing possibilities. Such ideas are not new in fiction or in philosophy, which is often ahead of science, but when scientists start to actually do something, we can be pretty sure that it's coming soon to a planet near us. I guess it's also kind of scary to think such a direct, non-language mediated communication could be possible. How would I feel about someone else looking around in my mind? Will I need some fire-wall software to keep private parts off limits? Or will human beings finally give up the ancient notions of privacy that we have inherited from our ancestors, both instinctually and culturally? These and other fascinating questions seem to me to fit well with our readings in Quest on anthropology.
And I haven't even gotten on to the moral questions yet. Is it OK to do such experiments on animals? I have to admit that I'm much less worried about this than neural engineering researcher Christopher James, whom Whyntie also quotes, seems to be. I presume that the rats were given anaesthetic where appropriate, and the research could not have been approved without an ethics committee ruling in its favour. And I'm pretty sure that rats do not have the sort of minds that do, or even could, worry about such abstractions as privacy. They were probably not interested in much more than the food that makes such an effective reward, and I am confident were treated at least as well as the rats that my very irresponsible high school biology teacher let me perform appendectomies and other experiments on. (I was usually successful, but I'm not sure how good an excuse success is.)
Nagel, T. (1974, October). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83 (4), pp. 435 - 450.
Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whyntie, J. (2013, February 28). One rat brain 'talks' to another using electronic link. BBC News Science & Environment. Retrieved March 2, 2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21604005
In this article, Jen Whyntie reports on the success of recent research which has extended brain-to-machine communication to brain-to-brain communication between rats (2013). Whyntie notes that this research, using implanted electrodes to gather signals from one brain which are then send to another brain using electrodes embedded in the same region, has also raised questions about what might one day soon be possible for humans and about the moral issues involved.
I was actually as amazed to learn that scientists could now use "electrodes in the part of the rat's brain that processes tactile information" to enable a "rat to 'touch' infrared light" (¶ 7). What, I wonder, does it feel like to "touch" infrared light? What does it feel like to "touch" rather than see the visual part of the light spectrum that is so very useful to us in our daily lives? And that reminded me of a very famous philosophy essay by Thomas Nagel: "What Is it Like to Be a Bat?", in which the author argues against a purely materialist conception of conscious awareness (1974). I remember reading with fascination this short but influential essay in my late teens, thrilled at how smoothly Nagel develops his argument step by step. Not many years later I decided that Nagel was wrong, but his wrong ideas are still brilliant and well worth studying, as are the equally wrong ideas in his latest book, published last year, where he continues to argue that the modern scientific reduction of all things ultimately to physics via chemistry via biology, especially Darwinian evolution, must be deeply flawed (2012). His Mind and Cosmos is again a great piece of thinking with many ideas that deserve and demand answers, but I'm sure that the flaws are more with Nagel than with modern science and its ever deeper and more comprehensive explanation of both the universe we inhabit and ourselves.
Naturally, or perhaps very unnaturally, the imminent prospect of linking my brain directly to that of another human being also opens up some amazing possibilities. Such ideas are not new in fiction or in philosophy, which is often ahead of science, but when scientists start to actually do something, we can be pretty sure that it's coming soon to a planet near us. I guess it's also kind of scary to think such a direct, non-language mediated communication could be possible. How would I feel about someone else looking around in my mind? Will I need some fire-wall software to keep private parts off limits? Or will human beings finally give up the ancient notions of privacy that we have inherited from our ancestors, both instinctually and culturally? These and other fascinating questions seem to me to fit well with our readings in Quest on anthropology.
And I haven't even gotten on to the moral questions yet. Is it OK to do such experiments on animals? I have to admit that I'm much less worried about this than neural engineering researcher Christopher James, whom Whyntie also quotes, seems to be. I presume that the rats were given anaesthetic where appropriate, and the research could not have been approved without an ethics committee ruling in its favour. And I'm pretty sure that rats do not have the sort of minds that do, or even could, worry about such abstractions as privacy. They were probably not interested in much more than the food that makes such an effective reward, and I am confident were treated at least as well as the rats that my very irresponsible high school biology teacher let me perform appendectomies and other experiments on. (I was usually successful, but I'm not sure how good an excuse success is.)
__________
Reference
Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whyntie, J. (2013, February 28). One rat brain 'talks' to another using electronic link. BBC News Science & Environment. Retrieved March 2, 2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21604005
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Animal Behaviour
There were a couple of reports on recent research into animal behaviour on the BBC News website today. One on chimpanzee behaviour, which is close to some of the material in the Quest 3 chapter on physical anthropology (ch.2), almost won, but then I saw " 'Robosparrow' created from dead bird".
In this article, Zoe Kleinman (2013) reports that a study using a mechanically driven, computer controlled dead swamp sparrow has confirmed scientists' belief that the males of the species flap their wings to show aggression. To get their sixty days of tests in the open, the researchers had to overcome technical difficulties to animate the dead body, which barely lasted so often was it attacked by living sparrow males.
What really interested me was the behaviour of the human animals. They went to a lot of trouble to devise and then perform an experiment that, whilst interesting, doesn't seem earth shattering. And their budget was tiny - only $1,500! They must have spent more than that over the course of the research. I can't even imagine that small amount paying for the machinery that fit into the dead bird's body to make the wings flap under computer control. This wonderful demonstration of the human desire to solve puzzles, to better understand things around us, again reminds me strongly of the article on chimpanzees that I'm not blogging this evening. I've emailed that one to myself, so maybe it will pop up here tomorrow.
The actual research results do not surprise me at all. I grew up on a farm, and the birds there all seemed pretty aggressive to me, and wing flapping or raising definitely seemed to play a role in that. Even the roosters that lorded over our free range hens (very tasty, super fresh eggs) engaged in the same kind of wing flapping displays. I guess such research might seem a bit pointless, but I don't think it is. Just because something seems obvious doesn't mean it's true. Lots of common beliefs that human beings, often whole societies, have had turned out to be completely wrong. And the best way to make progress is to constantly test everything. As you will probably quickly learn, one of my most frequent comments in class is "Check". In any academic field, academic are always checking whether some belief, some idea or opinion, is right or not. And often ideas are wrong.
Getting it wrong and then fixing the mistakes is how we make progress, which is why you should not worry about making a few, or a lot of, mistakes in class. My job is help you progress by learning from the mistakes.
Kleinman, Z. (2013, February 26). 'Robosparrow' created from dead bird. BBC News Technology. Retrieved February 26, 2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21579211
In this article, Zoe Kleinman (2013) reports that a study using a mechanically driven, computer controlled dead swamp sparrow has confirmed scientists' belief that the males of the species flap their wings to show aggression. To get their sixty days of tests in the open, the researchers had to overcome technical difficulties to animate the dead body, which barely lasted so often was it attacked by living sparrow males.
What really interested me was the behaviour of the human animals. They went to a lot of trouble to devise and then perform an experiment that, whilst interesting, doesn't seem earth shattering. And their budget was tiny - only $1,500! They must have spent more than that over the course of the research. I can't even imagine that small amount paying for the machinery that fit into the dead bird's body to make the wings flap under computer control. This wonderful demonstration of the human desire to solve puzzles, to better understand things around us, again reminds me strongly of the article on chimpanzees that I'm not blogging this evening. I've emailed that one to myself, so maybe it will pop up here tomorrow.
The actual research results do not surprise me at all. I grew up on a farm, and the birds there all seemed pretty aggressive to me, and wing flapping or raising definitely seemed to play a role in that. Even the roosters that lorded over our free range hens (very tasty, super fresh eggs) engaged in the same kind of wing flapping displays. I guess such research might seem a bit pointless, but I don't think it is. Just because something seems obvious doesn't mean it's true. Lots of common beliefs that human beings, often whole societies, have had turned out to be completely wrong. And the best way to make progress is to constantly test everything. As you will probably quickly learn, one of my most frequent comments in class is "Check". In any academic field, academic are always checking whether some belief, some idea or opinion, is right or not. And often ideas are wrong.
Getting it wrong and then fixing the mistakes is how we make progress, which is why you should not worry about making a few, or a lot of, mistakes in class. My job is help you progress by learning from the mistakes.
__________
Reference
Monday, 25 February 2013
A Hard Swallow
The European horse meat scandal has not excited me very much, but when the name Ikea appeared in the same title on the front page of the BBC News, I was a little interested. Horse meat balls in the world's best known furniture stores?
According to "Horsemeat found in Ikea meatballs in Czech Republic", finding effective solutions to the problems brought to public notice by the discoveries of horse in many European processed meat products over the past month is something that European Union agriculture ministers will be discussing in meetings now taking place in Brussels (2013). The article says that Ikea, the latest corporate victim of the growing scandal, acted to stop all sales throughout Europe of meatballs that might be tainted with horse meat, which was discovered by inspectors in the Czech Republic.
I inferred from the story that Ikea sells meatballs and other Swedish delights in its famous furniture stores. I've never been inside an Ikea store, so I wasn't sure, but my inference was confirmed by a quick skim of the Wikipedia entry for IKEA ("IKEA", 2013), which the company apparently prefers to write as IKEA, not Ikea as I've been writing it; I'll continue to copy the style of the BBC News and write Ikea. I also noticed that the "IKEA" entry on Wikipedia was updated today, although apparently before the horse meat story broke: there is no mention of horses in the article.
But as I've already said, the horse meat scandal seems to me a bit over-rated. Does it really matter that much if people eat a bit of horse mixed in with their beef or pork? What does seem to me to matter is the dishonesty of passing off horse meat as pig or cow, to which the obvious solution seems to me to start selling more horse meat - horse burgers, equine lasagna, and the like. But then I was surprised: in Australia, horses are generally much more valuable than cattle, and you couldn't really make much of a profit by selling a horse for hamburger mince. I suppose some profit is better than no profit, but I wonder if a meat processor for human food would pay much more than a pet food processor. So, who is dishonestly selling these horses dressed up as cattle or pigs, and why?
Reading the article, I realised that health is one concern, although there doesn't seem to be any evidence yet that any harm has actually been caused to any person as a result of ingesting a bit of horse. I suspect that what's really made it such a big story for the past few weeks is that a lot of people really don't like the idea of eating horses, although the French do it regularly. And of course, most of us don't like being lied to.
My blog post tomorrow will be about a different sort of dishonesty, one far more relevant to us. I thought about blogging that story, also from Europe, today, but it's a bit serious. Maybe I should written about the Razzie Awards, where Twilight was the all out winner.
Horsemeat found in Ikea meatballs in Czech Republic. (2013, February 25). BBC News Europe. Retrieved February 25, 2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21569645
IKEA. (2013, February 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:06, February 25, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IKEA&oldid=540193751
According to "Horsemeat found in Ikea meatballs in Czech Republic", finding effective solutions to the problems brought to public notice by the discoveries of horse in many European processed meat products over the past month is something that European Union agriculture ministers will be discussing in meetings now taking place in Brussels (2013). The article says that Ikea, the latest corporate victim of the growing scandal, acted to stop all sales throughout Europe of meatballs that might be tainted with horse meat, which was discovered by inspectors in the Czech Republic.
I inferred from the story that Ikea sells meatballs and other Swedish delights in its famous furniture stores. I've never been inside an Ikea store, so I wasn't sure, but my inference was confirmed by a quick skim of the Wikipedia entry for IKEA ("IKEA", 2013), which the company apparently prefers to write as IKEA, not Ikea as I've been writing it; I'll continue to copy the style of the BBC News and write Ikea. I also noticed that the "IKEA" entry on Wikipedia was updated today, although apparently before the horse meat story broke: there is no mention of horses in the article.
But as I've already said, the horse meat scandal seems to me a bit over-rated. Does it really matter that much if people eat a bit of horse mixed in with their beef or pork? What does seem to me to matter is the dishonesty of passing off horse meat as pig or cow, to which the obvious solution seems to me to start selling more horse meat - horse burgers, equine lasagna, and the like. But then I was surprised: in Australia, horses are generally much more valuable than cattle, and you couldn't really make much of a profit by selling a horse for hamburger mince. I suppose some profit is better than no profit, but I wonder if a meat processor for human food would pay much more than a pet food processor. So, who is dishonestly selling these horses dressed up as cattle or pigs, and why?
Reading the article, I realised that health is one concern, although there doesn't seem to be any evidence yet that any harm has actually been caused to any person as a result of ingesting a bit of horse. I suspect that what's really made it such a big story for the past few weeks is that a lot of people really don't like the idea of eating horses, although the French do it regularly. And of course, most of us don't like being lied to.
My blog post tomorrow will be about a different sort of dishonesty, one far more relevant to us. I thought about blogging that story, also from Europe, today, but it's a bit serious. Maybe I should written about the Razzie Awards, where Twilight was the all out winner.
__________
References
IKEA. (2013, February 25). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:06, February 25, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IKEA&oldid=540193751
Wednesday, 13 February 2013
The Dying Death Penalty
I saw the essay "An evolving debate: Democracy and the death penalty" in The Economist a few days ago (2013), and since you have already read Levitt's discussion of the death penalty (Levitt & Dubner, 2006, pp. 124 - 125), you might like to have a look at it.
The point I thought most interesting, though not directly related to Levitt's discussion, is that a majority of US citizens continue to favour the death penalty, even in states where their representatives in government have abolished it. I rather like this because it shows that in a healthy democracy the government does not and should not simply do what the majority, even a large majority, want. (I think the death penalty is just, but probably better not used.)
Apart from this main focus on the nature of democracy, however, paragraph 7 does discuss issues relevant to Levitt's discussion on pages 124 - 125.
You are, of course, welcome to respond to anything that attracts your interest.
__________
Reference
Levitt, S. & Dubner, S. (2006). Where have all the criminals gone? In Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (p. 117 – 144). London: Penguin Books.
Economy, too broad factor
Regression model is one powerful tool of statistics, and is widely applied
in many sciences and analyses. People applied it to solve relations between
things in order to explain what factors drive an interested variable; for
example, suppose that you are McDonalds fans, and you are interested in what factors
are relevant to Mc’s burger sales. You can make hypotheses, collect data, and
form regression models. Although this tool has some limitation such as if you
are interested in some non-quantitative factors such as people taste, health
concern, or a collection of Mc’s toys, you must convert them to quantitative
scales, its concept is powerful and useful.
In Where have all the criminals gone? chapter, Levitt & Dubner say that a strong economy is definitely not related to crime rate reduction in U.S. in 1990s. (2006, pp. 121 – 122) They give three reasons in order to support their conclusion; that is, a strong economy is related to only non-violent crimes such as burglary and robbery, and not related to violent crimes; however, violent crimes were the major reduction in that period. In addition, they strengthen their conclusion by providing evidence that in spite of high growth economy in U.S. in 1960s, crimes increased significantly.
I like their analyses because they can convey a qualitative and controversial issue to quantitative analyses based on fact and data, and I am practicing the way as they did because this is a good and effective method to make low-error and low-bias results of group meetings. However, this analysis is seemed as it followed the concept of regression, and I only concern that they regress a specific issue on a broad factor; thus, its result generally returns a weak relation or no relation; moreover, I concern that we might ignore some missing links between a strong economy and crime rate. For example, you regress Mc’s burger sales on an economy. You will find that its relation is low or weak (or you fail to reject the claim that its beta value is zero). However, an economy relates some degree with Mc’s burger sales; that is, when Mc’s do its marketing campaign by launching toys’ collection, it will be succeeded if an economy is strong, and some people who are not usually eat Mc’s will spend their wealth consume Mc’s in order to take its toys. Otherwise, this campaign will be failed if an economy is slow down.
Their analyses are convinced me that a strong economy is not a factor that drove crime rate down in U.S. in 1990s, and my concern is a little point for their conclusion. However, I have to raise this concern in order to remind me that their analyses and explanations are the study of specific events, and I cannot throw any factors into a bin if I think they maybe relate with my study when I do my analyses for my tasks by referring their conclusion.
__________
In Where have all the criminals gone? chapter, Levitt & Dubner say that a strong economy is definitely not related to crime rate reduction in U.S. in 1990s. (2006, pp. 121 – 122) They give three reasons in order to support their conclusion; that is, a strong economy is related to only non-violent crimes such as burglary and robbery, and not related to violent crimes; however, violent crimes were the major reduction in that period. In addition, they strengthen their conclusion by providing evidence that in spite of high growth economy in U.S. in 1960s, crimes increased significantly.
I like their analyses because they can convey a qualitative and controversial issue to quantitative analyses based on fact and data, and I am practicing the way as they did because this is a good and effective method to make low-error and low-bias results of group meetings. However, this analysis is seemed as it followed the concept of regression, and I only concern that they regress a specific issue on a broad factor; thus, its result generally returns a weak relation or no relation; moreover, I concern that we might ignore some missing links between a strong economy and crime rate. For example, you regress Mc’s burger sales on an economy. You will find that its relation is low or weak (or you fail to reject the claim that its beta value is zero). However, an economy relates some degree with Mc’s burger sales; that is, when Mc’s do its marketing campaign by launching toys’ collection, it will be succeeded if an economy is strong, and some people who are not usually eat Mc’s will spend their wealth consume Mc’s in order to take its toys. Otherwise, this campaign will be failed if an economy is slow down.
Their analyses are convinced me that a strong economy is not a factor that drove crime rate down in U.S. in 1990s, and my concern is a little point for their conclusion. However, I have to raise this concern in order to remind me that their analyses and explanations are the study of specific events, and I cannot throw any factors into a bin if I think they maybe relate with my study when I do my analyses for my tasks by referring their conclusion.
__________
Reference
Levitt, S. & Dubner, S. (2006). Where have all the criminals gone? In Freakonomics:
A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (p. 121 – 122). London:
Penguin Books.
Tuesday, 12 February 2013
True or False: Legalizing drugs leads to an increase in drug use.
As Ariely points out in the conclusion to his essay, facts matter: they should guide policy decisions which can have a very substantial impact on the lives of citizens and of whole societies and their institutions (2008). Knowing relevant facts about how people make decisions about stealing can guide policy making, which is likely be a disaster if facts are not taken into account or if people base decisions on false beliefs, however popular those false beliefs might be.
I think the decades long failure of currently popular drug policy is a good example. The facts are obvious: the policy of making some, but not all, recreational drugs illegal has done nothing to solve any country's drug problem. Many drugs have been illegal in Thailand for decades. Those same drugs are readily available and causing problems all over Thailand, as daily news reports show. If a policy is so clearly a total failure, we must ask why governments persist in it, and why the public continue to support an obvious failure. Why doesn't society demand a new solution, one that might actually help to solve the problems?
One common idea, I think, is that many people believe that legalising a drug increases the use of that drug; and conversely, that criminalising the drug reduces its use. If this is true, it makes sense to keep some drugs illegal. (But why not all? Why not alcohol, surely the most socially harmful of all drugs?)
This proposition about the relationship between the law and drug use certainly sounds reasonable. But, as Ariely has shown, and as Levitt's publishers advise: we must "assume nothing, question everything" (Levitt & Dubner, 2005, cover).
And when we question the common assumption that making a drug illegal reduces use, what do we discover?
Let's follow Ariely and Levitt's lead and see where we're led.
Facts. We need some facts to test the common assumption. Can you help?
Ariely, D. (2008). The context of our character, part I. In Predictably Irrational (pp. 195 – 216). London: Harper.
Levitt, S. D. & Dubner, S. J. (2005). Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. London: Penguin.
I think the decades long failure of currently popular drug policy is a good example. The facts are obvious: the policy of making some, but not all, recreational drugs illegal has done nothing to solve any country's drug problem. Many drugs have been illegal in Thailand for decades. Those same drugs are readily available and causing problems all over Thailand, as daily news reports show. If a policy is so clearly a total failure, we must ask why governments persist in it, and why the public continue to support an obvious failure. Why doesn't society demand a new solution, one that might actually help to solve the problems?
One common idea, I think, is that many people believe that legalising a drug increases the use of that drug; and conversely, that criminalising the drug reduces its use. If this is true, it makes sense to keep some drugs illegal. (But why not all? Why not alcohol, surely the most socially harmful of all drugs?)
This proposition about the relationship between the law and drug use certainly sounds reasonable. But, as Ariely has shown, and as Levitt's publishers advise: we must "assume nothing, question everything" (Levitt & Dubner, 2005, cover).
And when we question the common assumption that making a drug illegal reduces use, what do we discover?
Let's follow Ariely and Levitt's lead and see where we're led.
Facts. We need some facts to test the common assumption. Can you help?
__________
Reference
Levitt, S. D. & Dubner, S. J. (2005). Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. London: Penguin.
Sunday, 10 February 2013
Is he a hero? For?
As I was first reviewing, and then proofreading, Mo's essay on Slim, I realised that Mo probably drew the most challenging topic to write about. My own essay on Carlson seems to me to have been much easier to write: it's pretty clear that although Carlson has some heroic characteristics, he is not and could never be a hero. (A t least, after having written the essay, it seems clear to me.)
But what about Slim?
As I read Mo's well argued position, I started thinking more about my own ideas, and why this character is so much more difficult to write about.
In the end, I decided that, like Law does for faith, we have to divide the possible question of Slim's status as a hero into three distinct questions that need to be kept separate:
But there is at least one salient difference between the three questions, a point that comes out in several of your essays: two of the questions have answers that are right or wrong for everyone, whereas the answer to the other will vary from person to person.
I think I might actually need to write the essay to properly explore my own thoughts on whether Slim is a hero for Campbell or not. But not this evening.
Any thoughts?
But what about Slim?
As I read Mo's well argued position, I started thinking more about my own ideas, and why this character is so much more difficult to write about.
In the end, I decided that, like Law does for faith, we have to divide the possible question of Slim's status as a hero into three distinct questions that need to be kept separate:
- Is Slim a hero for Campbell? Does he meet Campbell's criteria well enough either be, or to have the potential to be, a hero?
- Is he a hero for Steinbeck? That is, does Steinbeck present him as a hero in Of Mice and Men?
- Is he a hero for me? Do I think he qualifies as a hero?
But there is at least one salient difference between the three questions, a point that comes out in several of your essays: two of the questions have answers that are right or wrong for everyone, whereas the answer to the other will vary from person to person.
I think I might actually need to write the essay to properly explore my own thoughts on whether Slim is a hero for Campbell or not. But not this evening.
Any thoughts?
Tuesday, 5 February 2013
More Cs:Campbell on Carlson on Candy's dog
One reason I set the exam question on Carlson's shooting of Candy's dog is the central role it plays in Steinbeck's carefully crafted story: it is in fact in the centre of the novel, over pages 50 to 56 out of 120 (2006); it moves the plot forward considerably; it tells us a lot more about the characters; it more firmly establishes themes that the story explores; and of course it powerfully foreshadows the awful climax that returns us to the beautiful and peaceful piece of nature whence we began, with even the heron (p. 2) and the little water snake (p. 8) reappearing to play a role. But are these characters' roles quite so benign when they reappear on page 112?
The reason for this short blog is that this central event in the novel also plays an important role in the support for some of your theses about an important human character in the story. And there seems to be considerable disagreement about how Campbell (as cited in Hartmann & Blass, 2007, pp. 202 - 204) would see the shooting of Candy's dog.
Hartmann, P. & Blass L. (2007). Quest 3 Reading and Writing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Steinbeck, J., (2006). Of Mice and Men. London: Penguin Books.
The reason for this short blog is that this central event in the novel also plays an important role in the support for some of your theses about an important human character in the story. And there seems to be considerable disagreement about how Campbell (as cited in Hartmann & Blass, 2007, pp. 202 - 204) would see the shooting of Candy's dog.
- Would Campbell see any heroism in Carlson's act?
- Could Campbell see any heroism in the act itself or the wider series of events?
Since taking account of opposing arguments is an important part of supporting our own ideas, you might find if instructive to discuss these specific questions more informally here before finalising your first draft of the essay this evening. What do you think? How well can you address the contrary opinion of others?
__________
Reference
Steinbeck, J., (2006). Of Mice and Men. London: Penguin Books.
Friday, 1 February 2013
C C C C C & C in OMM
I'd never thought of it until I was changing a file name from Carlson to Crooks an hour or so ago, when I remembered that Sup had commented on Curley's name in his review of his provisional thesis statement, but a lot of Steinbeck's characters in Of Mice and Men have names or are called by terms beginning with C: Candy, Candy's dog, Curley, Curley's wife, Crooks, and Carlson.
Do you think this means anything?
This is not the same question as the possibly more relevant one that asks whether Steinbeck gave his characters names that mean something, which is what Sup has been considering in the case of Curley.
Steinbeck, J., (2006). Of Mice and Men. London: Penguin Books.
Do you think this means anything?
This is not the same question as the possibly more relevant one that asks whether Steinbeck gave his characters names that mean something, which is what Sup has been considering in the case of Curley.
__________
Reference
Thursday, 31 January 2013
A Way Out for Kids’ TV Addiction
After
I had read Hartmann and Blass’s factual statement on page 219 (2007) which is “3.
American children watch an average of 21 hours and 42 minutes of television
each week”, I was not surprised by this fact because Thai children have also
faced this problem and I believe that it yields many disadvantages for their
lives. Therefore, my responding proposition is that parents should limit TV time
and provide useful recreational activities for their kids.
In
modern society, it is difficult to reject that television has become an
important part of children’s daily activity. The first and foremost negative effect
on children’s life is their health problems. When children sit in front of a
square screen, their common habit is eating snacks. This improper dietary
behaviour is one factor that leads obesity seeing that this kind of foods,
namely, potato chips, candy, cookies and crackers, contains high fat, calories
and sugar. Moreover, watching TV consumes children’s time to exercise. They
only sit inactively without even walking or playing any sports. As a result, getting
fat attributes to this sedentary activity. Apart from obesity, children tend to
have less time to sleep because of TV viewing. If a TV programme which they
watch successfully attracts them, kids are likely to resist going to bed because
they want to continue watching it.
In addition,
children have less ability to allocate their time efficiently owing to watching
TV. If most of their time is spent on TV viewing, they are not prone to have
enough time for practising, doing homework, reviewing and preparing their
lessons. Thus, their academic performance is affected and tends to be worse than
others who do not watch television. Furthermore, spending time watching TV isolates
children from society. Comparing with playing with their friends and talking
with their parents, most kids think that watching TV is better. Consequently,
they become unsociable and are likely to be grown apart from people around
them.
From
where I stand, limiting TV time is one of the most effective ways to cope with
these crucial problems since it creates opportunities for children to do other
activities besides sitting in front of television. The risk of health problems
like obesity tends to be reduced and kids also have more time for sleep and
learning. Moreover, if parents encourage their kids to participate in beneficial
recreations, for example, playing after-school sports, joining football club
and dancing, these activities not only yield advantages for their health but
also generate their social interaction.
__________
Reference
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)