Interaction with technology becomes a replacement for interaction with humans, just like pets did years ago. Even the pets go neglected now as the lonely person sits conversing with a computer screen. The lonely person tells itself that the text on the screen is the representation of the thoughts of another human, who is simply not close enough to converse by voice, even though it knows that many of these conversations occur only with artificial intelligence and scripted bots designed to sell porn and pharmaceuticals. There is only text on the screen, with no emotion aside from the occasional text smiley to indicate that the text is not angry.
Everyone's smile is identical on the internet.
The lonely person's wrists begin to hurt with the onset of carpal tunnel syndrome, and it beings to type with store-bought braces designed specifically for this ailment, which becomes more and more common. Reading is becoming increasingly common along with carpal tunnel syndrome, but the text is no longer in English. A new language is evolving which one does not need to be human to speak, a dialect of English never spoken because so much of it is unpronounceable, but understood by every young person with access to a networked computer. There was a time when reading was applied to writing which had been carefully crafted and constructed, proofread and edited before reaching the eyes of the reader. The situation has changed. Writing is taken less seriously when anyone with a keyboard can present their literary creations as quickly as they can type it, with typos ignored and revisions made only to conform to the new dialect, to change the word "two" to the digit and the word "you" to the letter that goes by the same name. Conversations take place without voice, like passing notes in class but across an ocean. The new language is the first to never be spoken since the invention of sign language. Deaf people no longer need sign language to communicate so long as they have a computer, and the other member of the conversation need not even know they cannot hear.
The lonely person flirts with a young woman who is really a middle-aged man trying to sell subscriptions to his stolen pornography web site. He places advertisements for penis enlargement pills in the margins of the page plastered with photographs of an anonymous vagina. Porn and pharmaceuticals are in the same business nowadays, and they use the same marketing techniques. The middle-aged man will die in nineteen months of a heart attack brought on by too much Mountain Dew and Hot Pockets. The lonely person will eventually lose the ability to interact with humans face-to-face, choosing instead to send text messages to people sitting on the other side of the room. In seven years it will develop a social phobia so severe that it stops leaving the house, working and living through its computer, eventually forgetting what words sound like and becoming a mute. As it surrenders itself to the sole outlet of the internet for communication, it will lose its smile, its voice, and its gender, becoming an anonymous drone, just like everyone else.
The text on the screen asks for age, sex, and location, but the lonely person can no longer remember the answers, and so it invents its own, posing as a young woman and trying to sell subscriptions to its stolen pornography web site.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
Trees
Trees are murderers and cannibals. The world of trees is brutal and harsh, but the atrocities they commit and endure move so slowly that to the eyes of a human, they appear beautiful and peaceful.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Belief
The problem with humans is that they think this matters. They create structures and systems and lifestyles based on this assumption. They think that time is a dimension, they believe time exists. They think that making things easier means there's less work and more happiness. They believe in purpose and meaning and gods and truth. The problem with truth is that it does not coincide with reality.
The problem with me is that I am not human, if that is what being human means. This makes me an alien or a freak, or a mutant. I'm none of those things. I'm simply a product of the evolution that led to this state. If I had to hunt for my food and build my own shelter, I would never have these thoughts and I would not be depressed.
If truth and reality exist, which they probably don't, then they are independent of each other. Attempting to reconcile the two is absurd and pointless and can only lead to tears or religion. Meaning exists only where it is created by minds, usually human ones. God exists only where people are religious. I don't believe in anything, which does not mean that I believe in nothing.
The problem with me is that I see the truth and reality at the same time. Even though I know it's impossible, I can't stop trying to see where they overlap. Trying to color in the lines of reality with truth in invisible ink. We evolved to do this, it's how we survived and took over and destroyed the planet's capacity for life.
The problem with time is that people think it exists as more than an illusion. Books have been written about moving through it like a dimension. Cats are happy because they don't suffer from this illusion. Drugs feel good because they remove it. Happiness comes from the deduction of memory.
The problem with technology is that humans trust it too much, even though they know better. It saves space and trees so it must be smart enough to handle checking our mistakes. A car breaks down no matter how well made it is. A computer does the same but with less warning and more severe consequences. Humans depend too much on technology and when it collapses they will be hunting for their food again.
The problem with you is that you think there is a point to any or all of this.
The problem with me is that I am not human, if that is what being human means. This makes me an alien or a freak, or a mutant. I'm none of those things. I'm simply a product of the evolution that led to this state. If I had to hunt for my food and build my own shelter, I would never have these thoughts and I would not be depressed.
If truth and reality exist, which they probably don't, then they are independent of each other. Attempting to reconcile the two is absurd and pointless and can only lead to tears or religion. Meaning exists only where it is created by minds, usually human ones. God exists only where people are religious. I don't believe in anything, which does not mean that I believe in nothing.
The problem with me is that I see the truth and reality at the same time. Even though I know it's impossible, I can't stop trying to see where they overlap. Trying to color in the lines of reality with truth in invisible ink. We evolved to do this, it's how we survived and took over and destroyed the planet's capacity for life.
The problem with time is that people think it exists as more than an illusion. Books have been written about moving through it like a dimension. Cats are happy because they don't suffer from this illusion. Drugs feel good because they remove it. Happiness comes from the deduction of memory.
The problem with technology is that humans trust it too much, even though they know better. It saves space and trees so it must be smart enough to handle checking our mistakes. A car breaks down no matter how well made it is. A computer does the same but with less warning and more severe consequences. Humans depend too much on technology and when it collapses they will be hunting for their food again.
The problem with you is that you think there is a point to any or all of this.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
My Annual Christmas Rant
This is a cleaned-up, streamlined, and brought-up-to-date version of last year's rant.
First off, this is not an argument against religion. As most people know, I am not a religious person at all, but that's a different conversation. Truth be told, I wish I had finished converting to Judaism in high school; if I had, I would have a fabulous, legitimate excuse to not participate in this absurd holiday. But in the end, Judaism only works if you share it with others, and I had no one to share it with. That combined with the whole "I don't actually believe in God" thing sort of slowed conversion to a halt.
First off, this is not an argument against religion. As most people know, I am not a religious person at all, but that's a different conversation. Truth be told, I wish I had finished converting to Judaism in high school; if I had, I would have a fabulous, legitimate excuse to not participate in this absurd holiday. But in the end, Judaism only works if you share it with others, and I had no one to share it with. That combined with the whole "I don't actually believe in God" thing sort of slowed conversion to a halt.
Nobody should be alone on Christmas. Every homeless person should get a free meal. Everyone without a family should have a friend to spend the day with. Every underprivileged child should get a toy to play with. Every lonely person who doesn't like Christmas should be called Scrooge and smothered by carols and TV specials until they come around.
And as soon as the day is over, every homeless person should go right back to their cardboard box in the alley. Everyone without a family should go back to eating every meal alone. Every underprivileged child's toy should be sold by their parents for drug money. And every lonely person who has been bombarded by cheap replacements for love and affection should go back to being lonely and shut the hell up about it, because nobody fucking cares.
Sarah: "Do you have any kids?"
God: "Nope."
Io Saturnalia. (Now THERE was a holiday worth celebrating.)
Sunday, October 7, 2007
A Hidden Problem With Fast Food
(Written in December of 2006. I rarely eat fast food anymore, in case anyone was wondering.)
How long exactly does a person have to resist an addiction before the cravings go away?
I'm not talking about cigarettes or alcohol or any kind of drug. I'm talking about fast food.
I decided a few weeks ago to just stop eating it, cold turkey. It's a horrible industry. They treat their workers horribly, they treat their animals horribly, they destroy the environment, and the food will actually kill you. Everything logical about the situation points to just never eating it again.
But there's a problem. Growing up in my family, we never sat down at the table to enjoy a home-cooked meal for dinner. If you wanted dinner, it was either something frozen thrown in the microwave, or fast food. I was, quite literally, raised on the stuff. Several times a week for my entire life I've had McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Taco Bell... Wendy's isn't as bad anymore as they voluntarily stopped using the evil killer oil, but it's still not good. It's just the least evil of them all.
I never realized it until I tried to stop eating it, but it's unbelievably addictive. I have been craving it nonstop. If I so much as see a commercial or hear someone say "french fries" my mouth starts watering, my stomach growling, and no matter what other options I have for food, nothing seems satisfying. I want my fast food and I'm going to be miserable until I get it.
And that's the thing really. If you're hooked on something illegal like heroin or coke or something, once you decide to quit, everyone is behind you. They have rehab clinics, support groups, rewards for staying clean for a long time. Not only do people NOT support you if you're trying to quit eating fast food, they punish you. Nobody says "You're quitting fast food? Good for you!!" No, they just roll their eyes at you, tell you you're a freak, and get pissed off at you when you refuse to go pick up some Burger King for them. The advertising is everywhere - TV, radio, billboards, magazines, newspapers, even on the sides of the fucking buses. Half of the fleet of state buses are actually sponsored by McDonald's and the entire vehicles are painted with their advertising. People talk about it all the time, and it’s everywhere. You don't have to go to a dangerous back alley to get your hamburger - oh no, you can't even escape it. You can hardly go a few miles without bumping into a whole cluster of fast food joints. It's everywhere, all the time. And it's not even like quitting smoking or drinking where you can keep track of how much money you save as motivation - it actually costs a great deal more to be healthy than to eat that crap. An entire meal at Burger King costs something like $3 - $5. If you want a decent meal, from a real restaurant, it'll cost you at least $10, often closer to $20 even at "cheap" places, and if you want something fancy it'll cost you a great deal more. If you're in a hurry, your options are fast food or no food. There's Subway, but they're few and far between near me, much slower, and if you don't go to a really busy one, the bread is always stale, the vegetables old, the meat slimy from sitting there all day. It's actually more disgusting (even though it's healthier) than regular fast food.
I don't know what to do. I've been fighting this and winning - just barely - for over a month now. Someone gave me $10 in gift certificates to Taco Bell for Xmas. I have coupons for free Frostees at Wendy's that expire tomorrow. I don't know if I can keep doing this. I'm always hungry, always drooling over the ads and the smell of the places as I drive by. I see everyone around me eating it all the time. Everyone's always telling me to give it up, give in, just eat it, one hamburger won't kill you. We don't have time to find something else, we can't afford anything else. Quit being a stupid hippie and just eat it like a normal person.
I'm considering stopping at Wendy's on my way home from work today. Like I said, they're the least evil. They don't use the cancer oil and their food is much less greasy. But it's enough to make me feel better, at least for a while. I know it will mean I'd have to start over from scratch, it will set me back the entire month I've been doing this. But is it worth it? I feel awful, I don't know if the cravings will EVER go away (mostly because I don't know of anyone else who was raised on it who ever tried to quit eating it), nobody is supporting me, and everything else is expensive.
Can I really go the rest of my life like this?
How long exactly does a person have to resist an addiction before the cravings go away?
I'm not talking about cigarettes or alcohol or any kind of drug. I'm talking about fast food.
I decided a few weeks ago to just stop eating it, cold turkey. It's a horrible industry. They treat their workers horribly, they treat their animals horribly, they destroy the environment, and the food will actually kill you. Everything logical about the situation points to just never eating it again.
But there's a problem. Growing up in my family, we never sat down at the table to enjoy a home-cooked meal for dinner. If you wanted dinner, it was either something frozen thrown in the microwave, or fast food. I was, quite literally, raised on the stuff. Several times a week for my entire life I've had McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Taco Bell... Wendy's isn't as bad anymore as they voluntarily stopped using the evil killer oil, but it's still not good. It's just the least evil of them all.
I never realized it until I tried to stop eating it, but it's unbelievably addictive. I have been craving it nonstop. If I so much as see a commercial or hear someone say "french fries" my mouth starts watering, my stomach growling, and no matter what other options I have for food, nothing seems satisfying. I want my fast food and I'm going to be miserable until I get it.
And that's the thing really. If you're hooked on something illegal like heroin or coke or something, once you decide to quit, everyone is behind you. They have rehab clinics, support groups, rewards for staying clean for a long time. Not only do people NOT support you if you're trying to quit eating fast food, they punish you. Nobody says "You're quitting fast food? Good for you!!" No, they just roll their eyes at you, tell you you're a freak, and get pissed off at you when you refuse to go pick up some Burger King for them. The advertising is everywhere - TV, radio, billboards, magazines, newspapers, even on the sides of the fucking buses. Half of the fleet of state buses are actually sponsored by McDonald's and the entire vehicles are painted with their advertising. People talk about it all the time, and it’s everywhere. You don't have to go to a dangerous back alley to get your hamburger - oh no, you can't even escape it. You can hardly go a few miles without bumping into a whole cluster of fast food joints. It's everywhere, all the time. And it's not even like quitting smoking or drinking where you can keep track of how much money you save as motivation - it actually costs a great deal more to be healthy than to eat that crap. An entire meal at Burger King costs something like $3 - $5. If you want a decent meal, from a real restaurant, it'll cost you at least $10, often closer to $20 even at "cheap" places, and if you want something fancy it'll cost you a great deal more. If you're in a hurry, your options are fast food or no food. There's Subway, but they're few and far between near me, much slower, and if you don't go to a really busy one, the bread is always stale, the vegetables old, the meat slimy from sitting there all day. It's actually more disgusting (even though it's healthier) than regular fast food.
I don't know what to do. I've been fighting this and winning - just barely - for over a month now. Someone gave me $10 in gift certificates to Taco Bell for Xmas. I have coupons for free Frostees at Wendy's that expire tomorrow. I don't know if I can keep doing this. I'm always hungry, always drooling over the ads and the smell of the places as I drive by. I see everyone around me eating it all the time. Everyone's always telling me to give it up, give in, just eat it, one hamburger won't kill you. We don't have time to find something else, we can't afford anything else. Quit being a stupid hippie and just eat it like a normal person.
I'm considering stopping at Wendy's on my way home from work today. Like I said, they're the least evil. They don't use the cancer oil and their food is much less greasy. But it's enough to make me feel better, at least for a while. I know it will mean I'd have to start over from scratch, it will set me back the entire month I've been doing this. But is it worth it? I feel awful, I don't know if the cravings will EVER go away (mostly because I don't know of anyone else who was raised on it who ever tried to quit eating it), nobody is supporting me, and everything else is expensive.
Can I really go the rest of my life like this?
My Thoughts on Xmas
(Written in December of 2006)
First off, this is not an argument against religion. As most people know, I am not a religious person at all. But that’s a different conversation. If anyone wants to know what my beliefs are, I’d be happy to share, but nobody seems particularly interested in listening to my beliefs, only pushing their own on me, so I won’t waste my time right now.
So. Xmas. And yes, I’m going to write Xmas because it’s shorter, easier to type, and that’s how I say it. “Exmas.” It’s supposed to be spelled out “Christmas” with the last name of that savior guy in the title. This is because it’s his birthday, right?
Wrong.
This is my first big problem with the holiday. Christians believe that it’s Jesus’ birthday and that’s why they’re celebrating. It is not.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that everything in the Bible actually happened just the way it says. That’s what Christianity is based on, right? Let’s flip to the part when Jesus is born. There’s a whole lot in there about shepherds being in their fields. This takes place in the region generally known as Palestine, right?
Why don’t you go look up some information on Palestine’s climate. Don’t feel like it? That’s okay, I’ve already done it for you. In December in that part of the world, it is very, very cold. Far too cold, in fact, for any sane shepherd to be out in a field with some sheep. In fact, it’s too cold for the sheep to even survive very well out in the fields, and there aren’t even really any fields, just dead grass and dirt. So a shepherd would have to be pretty insane indeed to be out there. So insane that I certainly wouldn’t believe anything he said about angels.
Now let’s take a look at the historical significance of December 25. It is, as many people are aware but don’t care to discuss, the date of the ancient Roman pagan celebration Saturnalia. This was a huge festival (that eventually came to encompass the entire month of December because it was just so darn fun) in honor of the god Saturn. It was celebrated with lots of gay orgies, drunkenness, and violence, as was any good Roman holiday.
Consider this scenario: the Christians are sick of the Romans believing what they want and celebrating with a lot of fun, and they want to spread their own religion, but they simply cannot get these damned pagans to give up their good times and convert. Some guy gets a great idea: “Say, fellas, how about we put Christmas on the same day as Saturnalia? That way, we can claim that anyone who is celebrating the pagan festival is actually just celebrating the birth of their savior. We can make it look like everyone is a Christian without actually having to go to the trouble of converting them!” They decided this was a great idea, and proclaimed the entire nation to be Christian while still allowing them to celebrate their favorite holidays. (Interestingly enough, they also did this on Easter, which is actually a pagan fertility festival, which is why Jesus miraculously rose from the dead not on a set date, but on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox.)
Over time, of course, they outlawed all the traditional ways of celebrating, calling orgies and gay sex and drunkenness “sins” and forcing everyone to act like authentic prudish Christians.
This is all extensively documented, of course. I’ve done the research and I encourage everyone else to do it as well. Prove me wrong. Don’t take my word for it.
Interestingly enough, although not a single person I have ever met has ever come up with anything resembling a convincing argument against all that I have listed here, everyone continues to wish Jesus a happy birthday on the 25th and force me into the exchange of overpriced crap we don’t need (see my “On the word Scrooge” essay).
In fact, Jesus must have been born, according to the Bible, in late spring or summer. On December 25th you are celebrating a highly sinful pagan holiday, and Jesus is probably very disappointed in you for doing so.
But let’s say that the shepherds were really out in their fields in the middle of the freezing winter taking bets on whether the sheep would freeze or starve to death first when the angels arrived. God decided to place the birth of the savior on the same day as a pagan holiday considered disgusting by Christians just to make it easier to convert the filthy Romans.
Why oh why oh why does there have to be something wrong with somebody just because they don’t like the holiday?
“It’s a magical time of year! There’s miracles and everyone is kind and good and selfless and charitable and you get to spend time with your loved ones and give thoughtful gifts to each other and everyone invites starving homeless people to Xmas dinner! Even if you’re not a Christian, you should still love the season for it’s magicalness!!!”
Yeah. Fucking. Right.
First off, I’ve never heard of an “Xmas miracle” on any scale happening anywhere outside of a movie or television special. Yesterday I had to run to the grocery store to buy some bread, and I thought somebody was going to kill me. The parking lot was packed full of people rushing to get their Xmas dinner groceries, you could only inch around looking for a parking space, and everyone was angry, impatient, swearing at me, and threatening to ram me if I got in their way. Inside the grocery store was no different, except it was bodies instead of cars. Nobody was nice, nobody was kind, nobody was patient. I actually saw a couple of women arguing over the last package of something or other that they needed for dinner.
This year, as every year, I tried to get my family, who insists on the exchange of gifts no matter how much I beg to be left out, to donate to charity in my name instead of buying me something. This year, as every year, they rolled their eyes, got angry, informed me that there was no fucking way they’re going to do that and to give them a REAL idea. Nobody gives thoughtful gifts. In my family, nobody is close, and in fact, none of us even really *like* each other, with very few exceptions. Everyone has a list of crap they want, and everybody gets more crap they don’t need, even if they don’t want it. But of course, I’m the only one in my family who doesn’t think it’s necessary to have more crap, who has decided that I have everything that I need and much more and I’d rather give to someone less fortunate than I. If I even suggest that I give any of my presents to charity after the holiday, everyone scowls at me, calls me ungrateful, tells me that I’m a bad person or a bad whatever-relation-to-them-I-am. I am the only person in my family who even considers the idea that having more stuff does not make a person happy.
But let me give people the benefit of the doubt. Let me assume, for argument’s sake, that most people really are good people on Xmas. Most people miraculously turn into kind, generous, patient, thoughtful people for 24 hours, and I’ve just had the misfortune of being surrounded by the exceptions for my entire life.
I still have a huge problem with Xmas.
What’s my problem, you ask? It’s that nearly everyone I know is a miserable bastard year round. They claim to be better people on that one day out of the year. One day out of every 365.25 days, they decide that they’re good people. After all, it’s Xmas.
And the other 364.25 days? They’re a bunch of miserable fucking bastards. They are selfish, greedy, materialistic, impatient, nasty people who would never dream of buying someone a gift for no reason or giving a penny to charity. I’d say a good 85% of all people I’ve ever known fall into this category. Yet somehow, they seem to think that everyone being just a tiny bit nicer to each other on one single day out of the year makes it all okay.
On the other hand. I, as well as perhaps 15% of the people I know, am a good person year round. I’m not perfect by any means, but I do my best each and every day to be kind and thoughtful and generous and caring and charitable and loving. Even though most people do not give a fuck about me. Even though I’ve never had a true friend in my entire life. Even though my family doesn’t like me and every time I think I’ve made a friend, they desert me as soon as the semester is over. Even though very few people ever appreciate anything that I try to do for them or anyone else. Despite all of these things, I always strive to be a good person, not to give in to society and become a miserable bastard like everyone else.
364.25 days out of the year, I’m a good person. And one, just one day out of the year, I’m a miserable bastard.
But there’s not something wrong with the world, or with the holiday. Oh no. There’s something wrong with ME. There’s something wrong with me because I don’t love Xmas.
And as Xmas approaches, suddenly people pretend to care. “Gee, Meg, why do you look so depressed? It’s XMAS!! You should be happy!” They don’t actually DO anything about it of course. They try to get me to like Xmas, because there’s something horribly wrong with someone who doesn’t. But nobody offers to spend time with me. Nobody decides that I’m a good person that they’d like to be friends with and hang around with. Nobody really wants to know why I’m unhappy, only why I don’t like Xmas. And even then, they don’t really want to know why I don’t like it, they just want to make me like it. Some of them give me some chocolate or something. But as soon as the 25th is over, everyone just stops caring. Their single day of being decent is over. For 364.25 days out of the year, I’m incredibly lonely, and nobody gives a shit.
“Nobody should be alone on Xmas.” Every homeless person should get a free meal. Everyone without a family should have a friend to spend the day with. Every underprivileged child should get a toy to play with. Every lonely person who doesn’t like Xmas should be called Scrooge and smothered by carols and TV specials until they “come around.”
And as soon as the day is over, every homeless person should go right back to their cardboard box in the alley. Everyone without a family should go back to eating every meal alone. Every underprivileged child’s toy should be sold by their parents for drug money. And every lonely person who has been bombarded by cheap replacements for love and affection should go back to being lonely and shut the hell up about it, because nobody fucking cares.
Well Xmas is fucked up and I’m sick of it. There does NOT have to be something wrong with me because I don’t like it. There’s something wrong with everyone else for thinking that one day of insincere greetings should make up for an entire year of being an asshole.
Thing is, I'm not trying to make everyone else hate Xmas. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm not trying to ruin everyone's day. I don't even care what other people believe, as long as it makes them happy, it doesn't hurt anyone, and they don't push it on me. All I'm trying to do is explain why I'm so miserable during this one time of year, and to get people to stop trying to force their holiday down my throat. I'd be just fine all through December if only people weren't constantly trying to make me like Xmas. Here are my reasons, you are not going to change them, please leave me alone about it. And if you aren't going to be a real friend to me year round, then don't bother pretending to care on Xmas - it's just insulting, and a nasty reminder of how lonely I am.
And yes, that really is the short version. I have more to say, but I’m too busy wrapping shit for my family members and watching my phone not ring to bother.
“I know nobody likes me. Why does there have to be a holiday season to emphasize it?” – Charlie Brown
“Christmas is a pagan holiday… And Jesus probably hates you for celebrating it.” – Huey Freeman (The Boondocks)
Io Saturnalia, motherfuckers.
First off, this is not an argument against religion. As most people know, I am not a religious person at all. But that’s a different conversation. If anyone wants to know what my beliefs are, I’d be happy to share, but nobody seems particularly interested in listening to my beliefs, only pushing their own on me, so I won’t waste my time right now.
So. Xmas. And yes, I’m going to write Xmas because it’s shorter, easier to type, and that’s how I say it. “Exmas.” It’s supposed to be spelled out “Christmas” with the last name of that savior guy in the title. This is because it’s his birthday, right?
Wrong.
This is my first big problem with the holiday. Christians believe that it’s Jesus’ birthday and that’s why they’re celebrating. It is not.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that everything in the Bible actually happened just the way it says. That’s what Christianity is based on, right? Let’s flip to the part when Jesus is born. There’s a whole lot in there about shepherds being in their fields. This takes place in the region generally known as Palestine, right?
Why don’t you go look up some information on Palestine’s climate. Don’t feel like it? That’s okay, I’ve already done it for you. In December in that part of the world, it is very, very cold. Far too cold, in fact, for any sane shepherd to be out in a field with some sheep. In fact, it’s too cold for the sheep to even survive very well out in the fields, and there aren’t even really any fields, just dead grass and dirt. So a shepherd would have to be pretty insane indeed to be out there. So insane that I certainly wouldn’t believe anything he said about angels.
Now let’s take a look at the historical significance of December 25. It is, as many people are aware but don’t care to discuss, the date of the ancient Roman pagan celebration Saturnalia. This was a huge festival (that eventually came to encompass the entire month of December because it was just so darn fun) in honor of the god Saturn. It was celebrated with lots of gay orgies, drunkenness, and violence, as was any good Roman holiday.
Consider this scenario: the Christians are sick of the Romans believing what they want and celebrating with a lot of fun, and they want to spread their own religion, but they simply cannot get these damned pagans to give up their good times and convert. Some guy gets a great idea: “Say, fellas, how about we put Christmas on the same day as Saturnalia? That way, we can claim that anyone who is celebrating the pagan festival is actually just celebrating the birth of their savior. We can make it look like everyone is a Christian without actually having to go to the trouble of converting them!” They decided this was a great idea, and proclaimed the entire nation to be Christian while still allowing them to celebrate their favorite holidays. (Interestingly enough, they also did this on Easter, which is actually a pagan fertility festival, which is why Jesus miraculously rose from the dead not on a set date, but on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox.)
Over time, of course, they outlawed all the traditional ways of celebrating, calling orgies and gay sex and drunkenness “sins” and forcing everyone to act like authentic prudish Christians.
This is all extensively documented, of course. I’ve done the research and I encourage everyone else to do it as well. Prove me wrong. Don’t take my word for it.
Interestingly enough, although not a single person I have ever met has ever come up with anything resembling a convincing argument against all that I have listed here, everyone continues to wish Jesus a happy birthday on the 25th and force me into the exchange of overpriced crap we don’t need (see my “On the word Scrooge” essay).
In fact, Jesus must have been born, according to the Bible, in late spring or summer. On December 25th you are celebrating a highly sinful pagan holiday, and Jesus is probably very disappointed in you for doing so.
But let’s say that the shepherds were really out in their fields in the middle of the freezing winter taking bets on whether the sheep would freeze or starve to death first when the angels arrived. God decided to place the birth of the savior on the same day as a pagan holiday considered disgusting by Christians just to make it easier to convert the filthy Romans.
Why oh why oh why does there have to be something wrong with somebody just because they don’t like the holiday?
“It’s a magical time of year! There’s miracles and everyone is kind and good and selfless and charitable and you get to spend time with your loved ones and give thoughtful gifts to each other and everyone invites starving homeless people to Xmas dinner! Even if you’re not a Christian, you should still love the season for it’s magicalness!!!”
Yeah. Fucking. Right.
First off, I’ve never heard of an “Xmas miracle” on any scale happening anywhere outside of a movie or television special. Yesterday I had to run to the grocery store to buy some bread, and I thought somebody was going to kill me. The parking lot was packed full of people rushing to get their Xmas dinner groceries, you could only inch around looking for a parking space, and everyone was angry, impatient, swearing at me, and threatening to ram me if I got in their way. Inside the grocery store was no different, except it was bodies instead of cars. Nobody was nice, nobody was kind, nobody was patient. I actually saw a couple of women arguing over the last package of something or other that they needed for dinner.
This year, as every year, I tried to get my family, who insists on the exchange of gifts no matter how much I beg to be left out, to donate to charity in my name instead of buying me something. This year, as every year, they rolled their eyes, got angry, informed me that there was no fucking way they’re going to do that and to give them a REAL idea. Nobody gives thoughtful gifts. In my family, nobody is close, and in fact, none of us even really *like* each other, with very few exceptions. Everyone has a list of crap they want, and everybody gets more crap they don’t need, even if they don’t want it. But of course, I’m the only one in my family who doesn’t think it’s necessary to have more crap, who has decided that I have everything that I need and much more and I’d rather give to someone less fortunate than I. If I even suggest that I give any of my presents to charity after the holiday, everyone scowls at me, calls me ungrateful, tells me that I’m a bad person or a bad whatever-relation-to-them-
But let me give people the benefit of the doubt. Let me assume, for argument’s sake, that most people really are good people on Xmas. Most people miraculously turn into kind, generous, patient, thoughtful people for 24 hours, and I’ve just had the misfortune of being surrounded by the exceptions for my entire life.
I still have a huge problem with Xmas.
What’s my problem, you ask? It’s that nearly everyone I know is a miserable bastard year round. They claim to be better people on that one day out of the year. One day out of every 365.25 days, they decide that they’re good people. After all, it’s Xmas.
And the other 364.25 days? They’re a bunch of miserable fucking bastards. They are selfish, greedy, materialistic, impatient, nasty people who would never dream of buying someone a gift for no reason or giving a penny to charity. I’d say a good 85% of all people I’ve ever known fall into this category. Yet somehow, they seem to think that everyone being just a tiny bit nicer to each other on one single day out of the year makes it all okay.
On the other hand. I, as well as perhaps 15% of the people I know, am a good person year round. I’m not perfect by any means, but I do my best each and every day to be kind and thoughtful and generous and caring and charitable and loving. Even though most people do not give a fuck about me. Even though I’ve never had a true friend in my entire life. Even though my family doesn’t like me and every time I think I’ve made a friend, they desert me as soon as the semester is over. Even though very few people ever appreciate anything that I try to do for them or anyone else. Despite all of these things, I always strive to be a good person, not to give in to society and become a miserable bastard like everyone else.
364.25 days out of the year, I’m a good person. And one, just one day out of the year, I’m a miserable bastard.
But there’s not something wrong with the world, or with the holiday. Oh no. There’s something wrong with ME. There’s something wrong with me because I don’t love Xmas.
And as Xmas approaches, suddenly people pretend to care. “Gee, Meg, why do you look so depressed? It’s XMAS!! You should be happy!” They don’t actually DO anything about it of course. They try to get me to like Xmas, because there’s something horribly wrong with someone who doesn’t. But nobody offers to spend time with me. Nobody decides that I’m a good person that they’d like to be friends with and hang around with. Nobody really wants to know why I’m unhappy, only why I don’t like Xmas. And even then, they don’t really want to know why I don’t like it, they just want to make me like it. Some of them give me some chocolate or something. But as soon as the 25th is over, everyone just stops caring. Their single day of being decent is over. For 364.25 days out of the year, I’m incredibly lonely, and nobody gives a shit.
“Nobody should be alone on Xmas.” Every homeless person should get a free meal. Everyone without a family should have a friend to spend the day with. Every underprivileged child should get a toy to play with. Every lonely person who doesn’t like Xmas should be called Scrooge and smothered by carols and TV specials until they “come around.”
And as soon as the day is over, every homeless person should go right back to their cardboard box in the alley. Everyone without a family should go back to eating every meal alone. Every underprivileged child’s toy should be sold by their parents for drug money. And every lonely person who has been bombarded by cheap replacements for love and affection should go back to being lonely and shut the hell up about it, because nobody fucking cares.
Well Xmas is fucked up and I’m sick of it. There does NOT have to be something wrong with me because I don’t like it. There’s something wrong with everyone else for thinking that one day of insincere greetings should make up for an entire year of being an asshole.
Thing is, I'm not trying to make everyone else hate Xmas. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm not trying to ruin everyone's day. I don't even care what other people believe, as long as it makes them happy, it doesn't hurt anyone, and they don't push it on me. All I'm trying to do is explain why I'm so miserable during this one time of year, and to get people to stop trying to force their holiday down my throat. I'd be just fine all through December if only people weren't constantly trying to make me like Xmas. Here are my reasons, you are not going to change them, please leave me alone about it. And if you aren't going to be a real friend to me year round, then don't bother pretending to care on Xmas - it's just insulting, and a nasty reminder of how lonely I am.
And yes, that really is the short version. I have more to say, but I’m too busy wrapping shit for my family members and watching my phone not ring to bother.
“I know nobody likes me. Why does there have to be a holiday season to emphasize it?” – Charlie Brown
“Christmas is a pagan holiday… And Jesus probably hates you for celebrating it.” – Huey Freeman (The Boondocks)
Io Saturnalia, motherfuckers.
On the Word "Scrooge"
(Written in December of 2006)
Lately everyone who finds out that I don't like Xmas has started calling me a “Scrooge.” This happens every year. I'm used to it, I know it's coming. But it still bothers me.
Ebeneezer Scrooge is a fictional character. He hates Xmas, yes. But that is not his primary character trait. He hates every day, and everyone.
His real character description is an unhappy old man who is obsessed with money and material goods. He is miserable because he puts his wealth first, and despises interpersonal relationships. This is all the result of a bad childhood, of course, and as such, not entirely his fault. But he is NOT miserable BECAUSE he hates Xmas. He is miserable because he only cares about things, not people.
In the end, he comes around. I've been told that “Even Scrooge came around and started liking Xmas!! Why can't you?” He didn't come around in that he started liking the holiday. He came around in that he became kind, loving, compassionate, and generous. As a result of this, he started being nice to people on Xmas. He also started being nice to people every other day of the year. Xmas is just a coincidental time frame, and not at all necessary to this story.
Why am I going into all this? Because I am not a “Scrooge.” I am not greedy and materialistic. In fact, that is one of the things I hate so much about Xmas. Every year my family drags me into the practice of exchanging gifts. Not thoughtful gifts, mind you; everyone has to make a list of what DVDs and CDs etc. they want, and everyone goes shopping with that list in hand because it's all about the STUFF.
Every year I tell them I don't want to exchange gifts this year. I don't mind driving up to my grandmother's house and eating dinner. I can stand the awful Xmas carols, and I can even stand being dragged to church. But I do not want to deal with the obsession with STUFF. I want no part of it.
Every year they get mad at me. They tell me I'm doing it and that's final. It's just not Xmas unless we all open up some expensive piece of crap that we don't need. They're buying me something and I'd better tell them what to buy or they'll get me something I really don't like.
I say fine. You want to buy something for me? Here, take this catalogue that I get in the mail every year. Pick an animal and buy it for a family elsewhere in the world who really needs it. Do it in my name, take the confirmation certificate and wrap it up in a big box. Nothing could make me happier than to open that up.
They roll their eyes at me. There is NO FUCKING WAY they are going to do that. Xmas is about the STUFF, not about generosity or kindness or helping the less fortunate. And I'd better come up with something “real” or I'm going to hate whatever they buy me.
They don't need to tell me that I have to buy something for them. They know that I'll guilt myself into facing the crowds with my list in hand.
Thing is, I enjoy giving things to people. I try to do it in subtle ways all year round. Want to go to lunch? Here, I'll pay for your sandwich too. Little sister, how about you come to the store with me? What's that, you really can't wait till you save up enough money to buy that pair of jeans? Tell you what, save your money for something else, I'll get em for you. We're meeting our grandparents at the restaurant for dinner, mom? Ah, that was a good meal... No, no, I'll get the bill. I insist.
These things make me feel good. Sometimes people even appreciate them, although most of the time they just take it for granted. But I keep doing it anyway, because I am a generous person and I like it that way.
I hate exchanging gifts during Xmas because I'm forced to. I don't want to give because I HAVE to, I want to do it just because. And I hate it when people buy stuff for me. I have enough money to buy whatever I need – I'd prefer that other people's money go to something more worthy. I like to work for what I have. And I don't like having a ton of stuff anyway – I don't need it, and I prefer to spend my money on the people I care about than the material things that will never fill the empty hole in my life.
So what does this all come down to? I don't like exchanging gifts, so I'm a Scrooge? That's absurd. If anyone is a Scrooge, it's all the people who think Xmas can't pass without everyone getting lots of STUFF they don't need. It's all the greedy, materialistic people in my family who refuse to donate to charity in place of buying a DVD. A DVD I don't even really want.
And heaven forbid I should give any of my gifts to charity after Xmas. Why, that would be just plain ungrateful.
Now how could anyone possibly call ME a Scrooge? That is just fucking insulting.
Lately everyone who finds out that I don't like Xmas has started calling me a “Scrooge.” This happens every year. I'm used to it, I know it's coming. But it still bothers me.
Ebeneezer Scrooge is a fictional character. He hates Xmas, yes. But that is not his primary character trait. He hates every day, and everyone.
His real character description is an unhappy old man who is obsessed with money and material goods. He is miserable because he puts his wealth first, and despises interpersonal relationships. This is all the result of a bad childhood, of course, and as such, not entirely his fault. But he is NOT miserable BECAUSE he hates Xmas. He is miserable because he only cares about things, not people.
In the end, he comes around. I've been told that “Even Scrooge came around and started liking Xmas!! Why can't you?” He didn't come around in that he started liking the holiday. He came around in that he became kind, loving, compassionate, and generous. As a result of this, he started being nice to people on Xmas. He also started being nice to people every other day of the year. Xmas is just a coincidental time frame, and not at all necessary to this story.
Why am I going into all this? Because I am not a “Scrooge.” I am not greedy and materialistic. In fact, that is one of the things I hate so much about Xmas. Every year my family drags me into the practice of exchanging gifts. Not thoughtful gifts, mind you; everyone has to make a list of what DVDs and CDs etc. they want, and everyone goes shopping with that list in hand because it's all about the STUFF.
Every year I tell them I don't want to exchange gifts this year. I don't mind driving up to my grandmother's house and eating dinner. I can stand the awful Xmas carols, and I can even stand being dragged to church. But I do not want to deal with the obsession with STUFF. I want no part of it.
Every year they get mad at me. They tell me I'm doing it and that's final. It's just not Xmas unless we all open up some expensive piece of crap that we don't need. They're buying me something and I'd better tell them what to buy or they'll get me something I really don't like.
I say fine. You want to buy something for me? Here, take this catalogue that I get in the mail every year. Pick an animal and buy it for a family elsewhere in the world who really needs it. Do it in my name, take the confirmation certificate and wrap it up in a big box. Nothing could make me happier than to open that up.
They roll their eyes at me. There is NO FUCKING WAY they are going to do that. Xmas is about the STUFF, not about generosity or kindness or helping the less fortunate. And I'd better come up with something “real” or I'm going to hate whatever they buy me.
They don't need to tell me that I have to buy something for them. They know that I'll guilt myself into facing the crowds with my list in hand.
Thing is, I enjoy giving things to people. I try to do it in subtle ways all year round. Want to go to lunch? Here, I'll pay for your sandwich too. Little sister, how about you come to the store with me? What's that, you really can't wait till you save up enough money to buy that pair of jeans? Tell you what, save your money for something else, I'll get em for you. We're meeting our grandparents at the restaurant for dinner, mom? Ah, that was a good meal... No, no, I'll get the bill. I insist.
These things make me feel good. Sometimes people even appreciate them, although most of the time they just take it for granted. But I keep doing it anyway, because I am a generous person and I like it that way.
I hate exchanging gifts during Xmas because I'm forced to. I don't want to give because I HAVE to, I want to do it just because. And I hate it when people buy stuff for me. I have enough money to buy whatever I need – I'd prefer that other people's money go to something more worthy. I like to work for what I have. And I don't like having a ton of stuff anyway – I don't need it, and I prefer to spend my money on the people I care about than the material things that will never fill the empty hole in my life.
So what does this all come down to? I don't like exchanging gifts, so I'm a Scrooge? That's absurd. If anyone is a Scrooge, it's all the people who think Xmas can't pass without everyone getting lots of STUFF they don't need. It's all the greedy, materialistic people in my family who refuse to donate to charity in place of buying a DVD. A DVD I don't even really want.
And heaven forbid I should give any of my gifts to charity after Xmas. Why, that would be just plain ungrateful.
Now how could anyone possibly call ME a Scrooge? That is just fucking insulting.
In Defense of Splitting Infinitives
(Written in November of 2006)
The English language has evolved over time, just as all spoken languages have. At some point in history, the infinitive form of verbs split into two words. It is the only language I know of which has this trait: the infinitive "to go" in English is "gehen" in German, "aller" in French, "andare" in Italian, "ir" in Spanish, and the list goes on. Infinitive forms are a single word, except in English.
There are other differences as well. Many languages have case systems, where the part of speech is included in the word itself, giving the speaker the ability to shuffle words around as s/he pleases to vary emphasis and tone. English does not have this ability, and sentence meaning is nearly always dependent on word order.
But English does have that very special infinitive. The two parts of the verb are not attached like conjoined twins, but free to wander as they please!
Of course, as word order is important in English, they can't stray too far. But look at this: an adverb can be placed in between the two parts, modifying the verb and allowing a tiny bit of play with word order without changing the meaning of the sentence! "To go boldly" becomes, dramatically, "To Boldly Go!" Yes! We can still be poets after all!
But there are those who denounce this splitting of infinitives, calling it "improper" and "bad English." It is true that we have developed this possibility, but we shan't be allowed to use it! Keep the two parts together, allow no modification to come between them!
For shame! Such an idea is comparable to a monkey one day evolving an opposable thumb, but being strictly ordered to use it as though it were only a normal finger.
Well this monkey isn't one for following nonsensical rules! I myself will willfully split infinitives, in all their various forms and tenses. I have frequently done so in the past, and will gladly continue to do so in the future. I may certainly be an English professor's nightmare, but I prefer to righteously think of myself as a visionary, a revolutionary, a liberal speaker of English who refuses to ever be held back by conservative values. I shall blatantly and boldly go where no grammar Nazi has ever gone before! Just try and stop me.
The English language has evolved over time, just as all spoken languages have. At some point in history, the infinitive form of verbs split into two words. It is the only language I know of which has this trait: the infinitive "to go" in English is "gehen" in German, "aller" in French, "andare" in Italian, "ir" in Spanish, and the list goes on. Infinitive forms are a single word, except in English.
There are other differences as well. Many languages have case systems, where the part of speech is included in the word itself, giving the speaker the ability to shuffle words around as s/he pleases to vary emphasis and tone. English does not have this ability, and sentence meaning is nearly always dependent on word order.
But English does have that very special infinitive. The two parts of the verb are not attached like conjoined twins, but free to wander as they please!
Of course, as word order is important in English, they can't stray too far. But look at this: an adverb can be placed in between the two parts, modifying the verb and allowing a tiny bit of play with word order without changing the meaning of the sentence! "To go boldly" becomes, dramatically, "To Boldly Go!" Yes! We can still be poets after all!
But there are those who denounce this splitting of infinitives, calling it "improper" and "bad English." It is true that we have developed this possibility, but we shan't be allowed to use it! Keep the two parts together, allow no modification to come between them!
For shame! Such an idea is comparable to a monkey one day evolving an opposable thumb, but being strictly ordered to use it as though it were only a normal finger.
Well this monkey isn't one for following nonsensical rules! I myself will willfully split infinitives, in all their various forms and tenses. I have frequently done so in the past, and will gladly continue to do so in the future. I may certainly be an English professor's nightmare, but I prefer to righteously think of myself as a visionary, a revolutionary, a liberal speaker of English who refuses to ever be held back by conservative values. I shall blatantly and boldly go where no grammar Nazi has ever gone before! Just try and stop me.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Chocolate
A commodity chain analysis essay written for an environmental anthropology class, completed April 2007.
Everybody Loves Chocolate
Milk chocolate is a favorite food in every single country where it has been introduced (Brenner 91). For many people, the first taste of the confection leads to a lifetime of cravings, and studies have found that it is the food craved most often in countries where it is found, especially for premenopausal women (Brenner 97). Chocolate is certainly a unique food in many ways. For example, the melting point of milk chocolate is a few degrees below human body temperature, but it is solid at room temperature, which causes it to melt in the mouth (Becket 10, Brenner 11). For most of its history of being consumed by humans, it was regarded as supernatural; an aphrodisiac, a cure for bodily ailments, and a substance fit only for royalty (Brenner 92-94, Coe 125, Satre 14).
What exactly is it that makes Chocolate so irresistible? Although it contains a host of chemicals known to affect moods in the human brain, including magnesium, anandamide and phenylethylamine, none of them have ever been proven to have a significant effect on human physiology when consumed through chocolate (Brenner 96). It also contains caffeine, a known stimulant, but only a very small amount of it; a bar of chocolate of cup of cocoa contains far less caffeine than a cup of coffee or tea (Brenner 96, Coe 34). As for the idea which has been around for millenia that chocolate is a health food, it does contain flavanoids, known to alleviate high blood pressure and cholesterol, but the process of alkalization used in turning cocoa beans into chocolate (even dark chocolate) destroys most of them, with the result that in order to consume enough flavanoids to be beneficial, weight gain would inevitably result from the high fat and sugar content of the chocolate, which is known to cause diabetes and hypertension (Adams). While some companies have worked on creating "healthy" versions of chocolate by changing the alkalization process, the flavor suffers, and so the most popular types remain unhealthy.
Modern science has thus proven that milk chocolate, and even dark chocolate, are not health foods; in fact, they are made up mostly of fat and sugar. What, then, makes chocolate so addictive? Why do people across the globe crave it, and why does it make them feel so stimulated? Science has come to understand that in actuality, this is precisely because it is made up mostly of fat and sugar, in a ratio of about fifty percent of each; the brain sends out a pleasure signal upon consumption of foods that are either sweet or fatty, and that signal is multiplied when a food is both (Brenner 97).
Even still, research continues across the globe attempting to find health-related excuses for eating lots of chocolate. In fact, although milk chocolate has only been around for slightly over a century, chocolate has been enjoyed in other forms since 1000 BCE, and was always thought to possess supernatural healing powers.
A Brief History Of Chocolate
For the vast majority of its history, the word "chocolate" referred not to a solid candy, but to a beverage made from cacao beans (which are actually seeds, but are conventionally called "beans" because of their shape); milk and chocolate do not mix easily, and the secret to combining them into milk chocolate was not discovered until 1876 (Becket 1). Although Europe didn't come into contact with chocolate until the Spanish conquest of the Americas, native Mesomericans had made use of it for centuries before that; linguistic evidents suggests that the Olmec were the first to make chocolate from cacao beans approximately three thousand years ago (Brenner 92, Coe 37, Satre 13). Following them, the Mayan and eventually the Aztec civilizations continued the tradition, valuing the cacao beans so highly that they were used as currency, and making the chocolate drink out of beans too worn to use as money. In Aztec society, the drink itself was valued so highly that it could be drunk only by royalty, and the gods in the form of offerings. (Brenner 92).
When the Spanish Conquistadores first colonized Central America, they disliked the drink because it was bitter and the spices in it turned the mouth red (Coe 108). Over time, as the invading Spanish society began to assimilate more into the native culture and many settlers even started intermarrying, they began to appreciate chocolate, although they preferred it heated and with cane sugar added to it as a sweetener (Coe 115). In this way, they were the first to make chocolate into a sweetened treat (and, consequently, they took the first steps in making chocolate an unhealthy food). Eventually they found ways to ship dried cakes of ground roasted cacao beans back to Europe, where it quickly became a status symbol consumed by royalty, as it had in Aztec culture (Brenner 92). Chocolate as a beverage actually became popular in Europe long before coffee or tea, and over time the drink became available to the masses in "chocolate houses," which were similar to the coffee houses of today (Brenner 93).
As demand for chocolate in Europe increased, a commodity market came into being, and cacao plantations for the purpose of international export were established in South America during the seventeenth century (Coe 181), powered at first by native slave labor, and, once the natives succumbed to European diseases, imported African slaves (Coe 184).
Despite its popularity throughout the world, the cacao tree is incredibly difficult to grow; it will not grow more than 20° north or south of the equator, in cool temperatures, at high altitudes, or without constant moisture (Coe 19), and so there are very few places on earth suitable for its cultivation. In 1824, cacao tree cuttings were transported for the first time from South America to a small island in West Africa named São Tomé, which was a Portuguese colony at the time (Coe 201). From there, the plant spread across West Africa in various European colonies run by African slaves. Consumers of chocolate often have an opinion with regards to which country produces the best chocolate, be it Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, or even the United States. In truth, nowadays 70% of the world's cocoa is grown in West Africa, with 43% in Côte D'Iviore, and only a very small portion is still grown in South America (BBC); although different manufacturing processes will create varying flavors, it is impossible to make good chocolate with inferior cacao beans, and so the African and sometimes South American farmers are the real source of the world's best chocolate.
Basic Production
Despite the advances in technology which have been made over the years, the first steps of making chocolate which are carried out by the grower have never changed; if a single one of these steps is insufficiently carried out, the resulting chocolate will be bitter and unpleasant, and not taste like chocolate at all (Coe 23). The cacao tree (Theobroma cacao, the first part of which means "food of the gods") is fairly small, and grows in the shade of larger foliage (Becket 7). The cacao beans used to make chocolate grow in pods which hang off of the trunk, or sometimes larger branches, and each pod contains thirty to forty beans (Becket 12, Coe 22). The first step in making chocolate is to harvest these pods, which is done with machetes, and break them open with knives or clubs, revealing the beans and a sweet, sticky white pulp (Becket 11). The pods do not all ripen at once, which makes mechanical harvesting impossible; they must be collected by hand over the course of several months (Becket 11-12).
Next, the beans must be allowed to germinate, and then fermented. The cacao provides its own natural mechanism for fermentation; the pulp is full of yeasts, sugars, and bacteria which react over the course of five or six days (on average) to ferment the beans. Fermentation is considered the most important step in developing the flavor, and if it is not done properly, the chocolate made from the beans will taste terrible. Once sufficient pulp and beans have been collected, they are piled up and covered with banana leaves to ferment, during which process most of the pulp will be consumed (Becket 13). Once fermentation is complete, the beans must be dried, either in a special oven or simply spread out in the sun (Becket 16). The dried beans are then subjected to inspection to ensure their quality.
At this point, the beans leave the grower to be shipped to the manufacturer. The beans are stored in large hessian sacks and stacked to be shipped many tons at a time (Becket 23). Although the beans are now dry, with a moisture level of about 7%, there is a risk of large amounts of condensation because of the large quantity shipped at once, and precautions must be taken to protect the sacks from moisture; there have been instances of shipments arriving at their destination moldy and unsuitable for use (Becket 24). In recent years, special containers have been developed to help prevent this from happening (Becket 25).
Different chocolate manufacturers have different methods of processing the cacao into chocolate, the details of all of which are secret, and which give the chocolate made in different parts of the world different tastes; but the basics of the process is the same. The beans are first cleaned and roasted, then ground, then alkalized to develop the chocolate's flavor (Becket 62, 69, 73). The chocolate powder is then further refined and conched, developing the flavor even more and making it suitable for use in food and candy (Becket 98). If milk chocolate is being made, the milk and sugar are combined first, and then chocolate is then added, with various heatings and coolings of the substance along the way (Becket 104).
There is an incredible amount of chemistry involved in the development of various chocolate flavors, making chocolate a science which has been steadily improved over time, giving rise to the wide variety of different types and flavors available across the world (Becket 108).
Chocolate's Dark Side
Cacao beans are an international commodity in very high demand, but its inability to grow in more than a few locations worldwide mean its production is highly concentrated, primarily in West Africa. It is also a relatively low-yield crop, and this, combined with the difficulty in growing it, gives large plantations an enormous advantage over small, family-owned farms. While much cacao is still grown on family farms, the families who own them have difficulty getting by; the average cacao farmer in Africa makes only $30 to $110 (US) annually (Osagie). On top of this, as a commodity, cacao prices are subject to fluctuation, and when the price drops, families must struggle even harder to make ends meet. In Côte D'Iviore, the world's largest cacao source, there are no minimum wage laws for workers in agriculture, and while child labor is illegal, the laws are not enforced. For these reasons, families are often forced to put their children into indentured servitude on large plantations in return for about $140 (US) and the hope that they will return home with money to contribute to the family (US State Department).
Unfortunately, things rarely turn out so well. A recent study by the Inter-national Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) found that more than a quarter of a million children are employed in the cacao industry working in hazardous conditions, and 64% of those are under the age of 14 (the minimum legal age for work in Côte D'Iviore). Among these, 12,000 had no relatives nearby, 284,000 were harvesting cacao pods and clearing fields with machetes, and 153,000 were involved in spreading pesticides without any protective equipment (IITA). Another dangerous activity too often performed by young children is the carrying bags of cacao beans on their shoulders. The bags weigh between 60 and 70 kilos, and many children suffer from open wounds on their shoulders from the straps which never heal because of their constant work (Tryon). There is also wide documentation of plantation owners beating and otherwise abusing child laborers, and locking them at night in crowded sheds without sufficient food and clean water (Tryon, US State Department).
Because there is no law against trafficking people, many children are recruited from outside the country, such as in Mali and Nigeria. The families are promised by recruiters that their children will find good, well-paying jobs, and so will be able to contribute to the household, but once they reach the plantation, they are treated as slave laborers, and suffer the mistreatment described above (Tryon, US State Department).
Even amongst children who work on family cacao farms, the opportunity to go to school is rare. In Côte D'Iviore, a third of school-aged children have never once set foot inside a classroom, and few children ever complete their primary education (IITA).
The Good News
As more and more people worldwide become aware of the problems with child labor and poverty in the West African cacao industry, changes are slowly being made. Groups like Save the Children and UNICEF are working with the chocolate industry to get child labor out of the system (MacAdam), and fair trade companies such as Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO) and Equal Exchange are working directly with farmers to set fair prices for their goods, encourage organic farming practices, and eliminate child labor. Fairly traded goods are slightly more expensive than traditionally traded goods because the farmers are paid a living wage for growing it, but they are not as expensive as people tend to think: much "fair trade" chocolate costs the consumer only 4% more than traditional chocolate, but the farmer receives about 25% more money for their beans (MacAdam). Farmers are also paid extra for beans grown organically. The extra money makes it unnecessary for families to use child labor or sell their children into indentured servitude, and fair trade regulations prohibit child labor - and unlike national laws, these regulations are strictly enforced. Quality regulations are also stricter than those for traditional cacao sale, and the chocolate itself is generally made without loads of artificial chemicals and other highly processed ingredients such as corn syrup, which means that the consumer is able to enjoy chocolate which is not only good for farmers, families, and children, but also generally of a higher quality (MacAdam, Equal Exchange).
Works Cited
Adams, Stuart J. "A critical look at the effects of cocoa on human health." Pabulum. 2006. April 15, 2007. <http://nutra-smart.net/cocoa.htm>.BBC. "Child labour rife in cocoa sector." BBC News. August 2002. April 15, 2007. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/2166032.stm>.Becket, S.T. Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use. Glasgow and London: Blacki & Son Ltd, 1988.Brenner, Joël Glenn. The Emperors of Chocolate: Inside the Secret World of Hershey and Mars. New York: Random House, 1999.Coe, Sophie D. and Michael D. The True History of Chocolate. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1996.Equal Exchange. April 20, 2007.
Everybody Loves Chocolate
Milk chocolate is a favorite food in every single country where it has been introduced (Brenner 91). For many people, the first taste of the confection leads to a lifetime of cravings, and studies have found that it is the food craved most often in countries where it is found, especially for premenopausal women (Brenner 97). Chocolate is certainly a unique food in many ways. For example, the melting point of milk chocolate is a few degrees below human body temperature, but it is solid at room temperature, which causes it to melt in the mouth (Becket 10, Brenner 11). For most of its history of being consumed by humans, it was regarded as supernatural; an aphrodisiac, a cure for bodily ailments, and a substance fit only for royalty (Brenner 92-94, Coe 125, Satre 14).
What exactly is it that makes Chocolate so irresistible? Although it contains a host of chemicals known to affect moods in the human brain, including magnesium, anandamide and phenylethylamine, none of them have ever been proven to have a significant effect on human physiology when consumed through chocolate (Brenner 96). It also contains caffeine, a known stimulant, but only a very small amount of it; a bar of chocolate of cup of cocoa contains far less caffeine than a cup of coffee or tea (Brenner 96, Coe 34). As for the idea which has been around for millenia that chocolate is a health food, it does contain flavanoids, known to alleviate high blood pressure and cholesterol, but the process of alkalization used in turning cocoa beans into chocolate (even dark chocolate) destroys most of them, with the result that in order to consume enough flavanoids to be beneficial, weight gain would inevitably result from the high fat and sugar content of the chocolate, which is known to cause diabetes and hypertension (Adams). While some companies have worked on creating "healthy" versions of chocolate by changing the alkalization process, the flavor suffers, and so the most popular types remain unhealthy.
Modern science has thus proven that milk chocolate, and even dark chocolate, are not health foods; in fact, they are made up mostly of fat and sugar. What, then, makes chocolate so addictive? Why do people across the globe crave it, and why does it make them feel so stimulated? Science has come to understand that in actuality, this is precisely because it is made up mostly of fat and sugar, in a ratio of about fifty percent of each; the brain sends out a pleasure signal upon consumption of foods that are either sweet or fatty, and that signal is multiplied when a food is both (Brenner 97).
Even still, research continues across the globe attempting to find health-related excuses for eating lots of chocolate. In fact, although milk chocolate has only been around for slightly over a century, chocolate has been enjoyed in other forms since 1000 BCE, and was always thought to possess supernatural healing powers.
A Brief History Of Chocolate
For the vast majority of its history, the word "chocolate" referred not to a solid candy, but to a beverage made from cacao beans (which are actually seeds, but are conventionally called "beans" because of their shape); milk and chocolate do not mix easily, and the secret to combining them into milk chocolate was not discovered until 1876 (Becket 1). Although Europe didn't come into contact with chocolate until the Spanish conquest of the Americas, native Mesomericans had made use of it for centuries before that; linguistic evidents suggests that the Olmec were the first to make chocolate from cacao beans approximately three thousand years ago (Brenner 92, Coe 37, Satre 13). Following them, the Mayan and eventually the Aztec civilizations continued the tradition, valuing the cacao beans so highly that they were used as currency, and making the chocolate drink out of beans too worn to use as money. In Aztec society, the drink itself was valued so highly that it could be drunk only by royalty, and the gods in the form of offerings. (Brenner 92).
When the Spanish Conquistadores first colonized Central America, they disliked the drink because it was bitter and the spices in it turned the mouth red (Coe 108). Over time, as the invading Spanish society began to assimilate more into the native culture and many settlers even started intermarrying, they began to appreciate chocolate, although they preferred it heated and with cane sugar added to it as a sweetener (Coe 115). In this way, they were the first to make chocolate into a sweetened treat (and, consequently, they took the first steps in making chocolate an unhealthy food). Eventually they found ways to ship dried cakes of ground roasted cacao beans back to Europe, where it quickly became a status symbol consumed by royalty, as it had in Aztec culture (Brenner 92). Chocolate as a beverage actually became popular in Europe long before coffee or tea, and over time the drink became available to the masses in "chocolate houses," which were similar to the coffee houses of today (Brenner 93).
As demand for chocolate in Europe increased, a commodity market came into being, and cacao plantations for the purpose of international export were established in South America during the seventeenth century (Coe 181), powered at first by native slave labor, and, once the natives succumbed to European diseases, imported African slaves (Coe 184).
Despite its popularity throughout the world, the cacao tree is incredibly difficult to grow; it will not grow more than 20° north or south of the equator, in cool temperatures, at high altitudes, or without constant moisture (Coe 19), and so there are very few places on earth suitable for its cultivation. In 1824, cacao tree cuttings were transported for the first time from South America to a small island in West Africa named São Tomé, which was a Portuguese colony at the time (Coe 201). From there, the plant spread across West Africa in various European colonies run by African slaves. Consumers of chocolate often have an opinion with regards to which country produces the best chocolate, be it Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, or even the United States. In truth, nowadays 70% of the world's cocoa is grown in West Africa, with 43% in Côte D'Iviore, and only a very small portion is still grown in South America (BBC); although different manufacturing processes will create varying flavors, it is impossible to make good chocolate with inferior cacao beans, and so the African and sometimes South American farmers are the real source of the world's best chocolate.
Basic Production
Despite the advances in technology which have been made over the years, the first steps of making chocolate which are carried out by the grower have never changed; if a single one of these steps is insufficiently carried out, the resulting chocolate will be bitter and unpleasant, and not taste like chocolate at all (Coe 23). The cacao tree (Theobroma cacao, the first part of which means "food of the gods") is fairly small, and grows in the shade of larger foliage (Becket 7). The cacao beans used to make chocolate grow in pods which hang off of the trunk, or sometimes larger branches, and each pod contains thirty to forty beans (Becket 12, Coe 22). The first step in making chocolate is to harvest these pods, which is done with machetes, and break them open with knives or clubs, revealing the beans and a sweet, sticky white pulp (Becket 11). The pods do not all ripen at once, which makes mechanical harvesting impossible; they must be collected by hand over the course of several months (Becket 11-12).
Next, the beans must be allowed to germinate, and then fermented. The cacao provides its own natural mechanism for fermentation; the pulp is full of yeasts, sugars, and bacteria which react over the course of five or six days (on average) to ferment the beans. Fermentation is considered the most important step in developing the flavor, and if it is not done properly, the chocolate made from the beans will taste terrible. Once sufficient pulp and beans have been collected, they are piled up and covered with banana leaves to ferment, during which process most of the pulp will be consumed (Becket 13). Once fermentation is complete, the beans must be dried, either in a special oven or simply spread out in the sun (Becket 16). The dried beans are then subjected to inspection to ensure their quality.
At this point, the beans leave the grower to be shipped to the manufacturer. The beans are stored in large hessian sacks and stacked to be shipped many tons at a time (Becket 23). Although the beans are now dry, with a moisture level of about 7%, there is a risk of large amounts of condensation because of the large quantity shipped at once, and precautions must be taken to protect the sacks from moisture; there have been instances of shipments arriving at their destination moldy and unsuitable for use (Becket 24). In recent years, special containers have been developed to help prevent this from happening (Becket 25).
Different chocolate manufacturers have different methods of processing the cacao into chocolate, the details of all of which are secret, and which give the chocolate made in different parts of the world different tastes; but the basics of the process is the same. The beans are first cleaned and roasted, then ground, then alkalized to develop the chocolate's flavor (Becket 62, 69, 73). The chocolate powder is then further refined and conched, developing the flavor even more and making it suitable for use in food and candy (Becket 98). If milk chocolate is being made, the milk and sugar are combined first, and then chocolate is then added, with various heatings and coolings of the substance along the way (Becket 104).
There is an incredible amount of chemistry involved in the development of various chocolate flavors, making chocolate a science which has been steadily improved over time, giving rise to the wide variety of different types and flavors available across the world (Becket 108).
Chocolate's Dark Side
Cacao beans are an international commodity in very high demand, but its inability to grow in more than a few locations worldwide mean its production is highly concentrated, primarily in West Africa. It is also a relatively low-yield crop, and this, combined with the difficulty in growing it, gives large plantations an enormous advantage over small, family-owned farms. While much cacao is still grown on family farms, the families who own them have difficulty getting by; the average cacao farmer in Africa makes only $30 to $110 (US) annually (Osagie). On top of this, as a commodity, cacao prices are subject to fluctuation, and when the price drops, families must struggle even harder to make ends meet. In Côte D'Iviore, the world's largest cacao source, there are no minimum wage laws for workers in agriculture, and while child labor is illegal, the laws are not enforced. For these reasons, families are often forced to put their children into indentured servitude on large plantations in return for about $140 (US) and the hope that they will return home with money to contribute to the family (US State Department).
Unfortunately, things rarely turn out so well. A recent study by the Inter-national Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) found that more than a quarter of a million children are employed in the cacao industry working in hazardous conditions, and 64% of those are under the age of 14 (the minimum legal age for work in Côte D'Iviore). Among these, 12,000 had no relatives nearby, 284,000 were harvesting cacao pods and clearing fields with machetes, and 153,000 were involved in spreading pesticides without any protective equipment (IITA). Another dangerous activity too often performed by young children is the carrying bags of cacao beans on their shoulders. The bags weigh between 60 and 70 kilos, and many children suffer from open wounds on their shoulders from the straps which never heal because of their constant work (Tryon). There is also wide documentation of plantation owners beating and otherwise abusing child laborers, and locking them at night in crowded sheds without sufficient food and clean water (Tryon, US State Department).
Because there is no law against trafficking people, many children are recruited from outside the country, such as in Mali and Nigeria. The families are promised by recruiters that their children will find good, well-paying jobs, and so will be able to contribute to the household, but once they reach the plantation, they are treated as slave laborers, and suffer the mistreatment described above (Tryon, US State Department).
Even amongst children who work on family cacao farms, the opportunity to go to school is rare. In Côte D'Iviore, a third of school-aged children have never once set foot inside a classroom, and few children ever complete their primary education (IITA).
The Good News
As more and more people worldwide become aware of the problems with child labor and poverty in the West African cacao industry, changes are slowly being made. Groups like Save the Children and UNICEF are working with the chocolate industry to get child labor out of the system (MacAdam), and fair trade companies such as Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO) and Equal Exchange are working directly with farmers to set fair prices for their goods, encourage organic farming practices, and eliminate child labor. Fairly traded goods are slightly more expensive than traditionally traded goods because the farmers are paid a living wage for growing it, but they are not as expensive as people tend to think: much "fair trade" chocolate costs the consumer only 4% more than traditional chocolate, but the farmer receives about 25% more money for their beans (MacAdam). Farmers are also paid extra for beans grown organically. The extra money makes it unnecessary for families to use child labor or sell their children into indentured servitude, and fair trade regulations prohibit child labor - and unlike national laws, these regulations are strictly enforced. Quality regulations are also stricter than those for traditional cacao sale, and the chocolate itself is generally made without loads of artificial chemicals and other highly processed ingredients such as corn syrup, which means that the consumer is able to enjoy chocolate which is not only good for farmers, families, and children, but also generally of a higher quality (MacAdam, Equal Exchange).
Works Cited
Adams, Stuart J. "A critical look at the effects of cocoa on human health." Pabulum. 2006. April 15, 2007. <http://nutra-smart.net/cocoa.htm>.BBC. "Child labour rife in cocoa sector." BBC News. August 2002. April 15, 2007. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/2166032.stm>.Becket, S.T. Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use. Glasgow and London: Blacki & Son Ltd, 1988.Brenner, Joël Glenn. The Emperors of Chocolate: Inside the Secret World of Hershey and Mars. New York: Random House, 1999.Coe, Sophie D. and Michael D. The True History of Chocolate. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1996.Equal Exchange. April 20, 2007.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Religion and Evolution
Dedicated to everyone who has ever tried to save my soul.
Introduction
When I was about five years old, in Sunday School the week before Easter at my family's Congregational Protestant church, the teachers were playing for us a cartoon video about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I remember, quite clearly, seeing the cartoon image of the white man nailed to the wooden cross, and I called over one of my teachers: I had a question.
"How do we know this happened?" I asked, expecting a genuine factual answer.
"Because it is written in the Bible," responded the teacher, glad to see my interest in my assigned religion.
"So how do we know the Bible is right?" I asked, looking for something a little more substantial than that.
"Because it was written by God," responded the teacher, happy to help me find my way to the Lord.
"Well how do we know that God wrote it?" I asked, beginning to get confused.
At this, the teacher smiled broadly, put her hand on my shoulder, and said, "because we just have faith."
I looked around the room and saw the other young students, happy to know that God was watching over them and Jesus was their friend, not a doubt in their mind that any of this might be untrue, and it dawned on me that I was the only person in that room who saw any problem whatsoever with simply accepting these ideas with absolutely no evidence of their truth. The Bible said so, God wrote the Bible, and we just have faith. Asking for a rational argument made me the odd one out.
Over the years I have grown very interested in human religion. It is clearly not the result of gullibility or ignorance (as I thought when I was young and foolish), as even the most intelligent people are usually religious, believing in a higher power even if they do not subscribe to a particular religion. Even those who question authority at every turn, for every situation, never for a moment question the existence of God. A person like me, who finds the existence of such a figure unlikely and unnecessary, is rare.
Theory of Religion and Evolution
Most people would say that the reason the majority of humans believe in a higher power is because one exists, plain and simple; but after years of studying religion, psychology, biology, natural science, and whatever other subjects I found interesting, I have come up with an alternate theory which I think deserves consideration.
Humans share 99% of their DNA with chimpanzees, and though they can communicate with sign language and make and use tools, the apes have never developed cars or computers or coal power production plants. One thing that every religion I have studied has in common is the idea that human beings are special, and in some way superior to other animals, explaining this phenomenon of human advancement. It seems to me, however, that the main differences between humans and apes are small and few: we have opposable thumbs, and absurdly large brains. The thumbs make more complicated tool use possible, but are useless without the capacity to develop such tools. The brain size, on the other hand, has far more interesting consequences.
Human brains are so large that babies must be born before their brains are fully grown. While we retain a few basic instincts, they are not nearly enough to survive, and so our distant ancestors evolved a different way of surviving over time: a compulsion to ask questions, and find answers for them.
This drive to gather information led to an accumulation of human knowledge. Its beginnings were surely simple: is this berry good to eat? Experimentation added more and more information to the pool, eventually leading up to complicated hunting and farming techniques, crafting skills, and over time things like biology, astronomy, chemistry, and mathematics. The use of language, and eventually writing, aided the species in keeping track of more information than could be stored in a single brain.
But not every question could be answered at first. Until fairly recently in human history, something like rain was a great mystery which could not be solved; but the drive to find an answer would not go away, and would torture a human until it could be satisfied. This is how religion was born: to answer all of the questions which could not be answered with experimentation. The rain is the tears of a higher being; it is controlled by that goddess; it is a sign that this god is pleased, or angry. Mythology was built up with stories to explain the origin of each phenomenon which could not be otherwise understood. Ancient religions held by groups such as the Druids, the Greeks, the Romans, and indigenous groups across the globe, are full of such stories.
Over time, experimentation, which came to be known as science, found answers to many of these questions, alleviating the need for religious answers to them. This was often problematic, and a scientist who contradicted the teachings of a religion would be punished for heresy. Now and then a new religion would take over, dismissing the mythology of the old one and replacing some answers with scientific ones, and other answers with new religious ones. Nowadays, most people in the Western world laugh at the beliefs of their ancient ancestors, because they accept the scientific explanations of things - and yet they still cling to their religion.
The fact of the matter is, religion can never be done away with completely so long as humans exist, because there are two questions which can never be answered by experimentation: why are we here, and what happens when we die.
Because we can never find scientific answers for these questions, there will always be a drive to find an answer for them in some other way. Without a purpose and an assurance that such a purpose will be continued even after death, humans would no longer have a reason to continue their lives. Our chimpanzee relatives do not need religion because instinct prompts them to keep going; the human instinct for survival is only enough if reinforced by a purpose in life. The prevalence of suicide in those who do not believe in an ultimate purpose for life is strong evidence of this. Humans need religion in order to continue their existence.
This is problematic for those, such as myself, who are not religious: the drive to find an answer is still there, but the answer is unacceptable, and a better one is unattainable. This often leads to insomnia, anxiety-related issues, severe depression, and sometimes suicide. Personally, I find that the only way I can keep going is to keep myself busy enough that I don't have time to think about it; I envy my cat, sleeping at my feet, who does not have this unfulfillable need.
The Consequences of Religion
Though I fully believe that religion is an invention, not a revelation of truth, I do not condemn or look down on those who are religious; that would be absurd, as religion is a necessary part of the lives of humans in general. I do, however, find it disturbing how many ways modern religion negatively impacts the lives of so many people in the world. Despite some potentially harmful superstitions, religion as a whole was not a major problem until monotheism came into existence. When a religion accepts the idea of multiple deities, it is not difficult to embrace the deities of another group should the two come in contact. These are the gods here, those are the gods there, and that is that. When first a group of humans decided that there is only one god, however, things began to get messy. If there is only one god, then those who believe in other gods are wrong. Depending on the style of the monotheistic religion, they must be corrected and converted to save their souls, or even slaughtered for their heresy.
Monotheism has continued to cause problems in modern Western society. Judeo-Christian morals have strongly influenced the social code of morals and ethics, and even laws which are often justified simply as "God's will." Monotheistic religion has been used to justify wars, racial intolerance, religious intolerance, and gender inequality. Notably in current events, there is a battle between those who see gender variance and homosexual behavior as wrong based on their religion, and those who see no harm in it or accept it as natural. The lives of a large percentage of people are determined by laws which allow or disallow same-sex marriage, adoption for same-sex couples, gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy, and a plethora of related issues. Historically in many polytheistic cultures this problem never existed; such variances were accepted as normal or natural, and were common and unstigmatized. Even today, in areas where Christian influence is rejected or minimized, many indigenous cultures still practice the traditional acceptance of these variances.
It is clear that human religion is not about to disappear. One hopes, however, that its power will be used in the future to promote tolerance and acceptance rather than hate, violence, and bigotry.
When I was about five years old, in Sunday School the week before Easter at my family's Congregational Protestant church, the teachers were playing for us a cartoon video about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I remember, quite clearly, seeing the cartoon image of the white man nailed to the wooden cross, and I called over one of my teachers: I had a question.
"How do we know this happened?" I asked, expecting a genuine factual answer.
"Because it is written in the Bible," responded the teacher, glad to see my interest in my assigned religion.
"So how do we know the Bible is right?" I asked, looking for something a little more substantial than that.
"Because it was written by God," responded the teacher, happy to help me find my way to the Lord.
"Well how do we know that God wrote it?" I asked, beginning to get confused.
At this, the teacher smiled broadly, put her hand on my shoulder, and said, "because we just have faith."
I looked around the room and saw the other young students, happy to know that God was watching over them and Jesus was their friend, not a doubt in their mind that any of this might be untrue, and it dawned on me that I was the only person in that room who saw any problem whatsoever with simply accepting these ideas with absolutely no evidence of their truth. The Bible said so, God wrote the Bible, and we just have faith. Asking for a rational argument made me the odd one out.
Over the years I have grown very interested in human religion. It is clearly not the result of gullibility or ignorance (as I thought when I was young and foolish), as even the most intelligent people are usually religious, believing in a higher power even if they do not subscribe to a particular religion. Even those who question authority at every turn, for every situation, never for a moment question the existence of God. A person like me, who finds the existence of such a figure unlikely and unnecessary, is rare.
Theory of Religion and Evolution
Most people would say that the reason the majority of humans believe in a higher power is because one exists, plain and simple; but after years of studying religion, psychology, biology, natural science, and whatever other subjects I found interesting, I have come up with an alternate theory which I think deserves consideration.
Humans share 99% of their DNA with chimpanzees, and though they can communicate with sign language and make and use tools, the apes have never developed cars or computers or coal power production plants. One thing that every religion I have studied has in common is the idea that human beings are special, and in some way superior to other animals, explaining this phenomenon of human advancement. It seems to me, however, that the main differences between humans and apes are small and few: we have opposable thumbs, and absurdly large brains. The thumbs make more complicated tool use possible, but are useless without the capacity to develop such tools. The brain size, on the other hand, has far more interesting consequences.
Human brains are so large that babies must be born before their brains are fully grown. While we retain a few basic instincts, they are not nearly enough to survive, and so our distant ancestors evolved a different way of surviving over time: a compulsion to ask questions, and find answers for them.
This drive to gather information led to an accumulation of human knowledge. Its beginnings were surely simple: is this berry good to eat? Experimentation added more and more information to the pool, eventually leading up to complicated hunting and farming techniques, crafting skills, and over time things like biology, astronomy, chemistry, and mathematics. The use of language, and eventually writing, aided the species in keeping track of more information than could be stored in a single brain.
But not every question could be answered at first. Until fairly recently in human history, something like rain was a great mystery which could not be solved; but the drive to find an answer would not go away, and would torture a human until it could be satisfied. This is how religion was born: to answer all of the questions which could not be answered with experimentation. The rain is the tears of a higher being; it is controlled by that goddess; it is a sign that this god is pleased, or angry. Mythology was built up with stories to explain the origin of each phenomenon which could not be otherwise understood. Ancient religions held by groups such as the Druids, the Greeks, the Romans, and indigenous groups across the globe, are full of such stories.
Over time, experimentation, which came to be known as science, found answers to many of these questions, alleviating the need for religious answers to them. This was often problematic, and a scientist who contradicted the teachings of a religion would be punished for heresy. Now and then a new religion would take over, dismissing the mythology of the old one and replacing some answers with scientific ones, and other answers with new religious ones. Nowadays, most people in the Western world laugh at the beliefs of their ancient ancestors, because they accept the scientific explanations of things - and yet they still cling to their religion.
The fact of the matter is, religion can never be done away with completely so long as humans exist, because there are two questions which can never be answered by experimentation: why are we here, and what happens when we die.
Because we can never find scientific answers for these questions, there will always be a drive to find an answer for them in some other way. Without a purpose and an assurance that such a purpose will be continued even after death, humans would no longer have a reason to continue their lives. Our chimpanzee relatives do not need religion because instinct prompts them to keep going; the human instinct for survival is only enough if reinforced by a purpose in life. The prevalence of suicide in those who do not believe in an ultimate purpose for life is strong evidence of this. Humans need religion in order to continue their existence.
This is problematic for those, such as myself, who are not religious: the drive to find an answer is still there, but the answer is unacceptable, and a better one is unattainable. This often leads to insomnia, anxiety-related issues, severe depression, and sometimes suicide. Personally, I find that the only way I can keep going is to keep myself busy enough that I don't have time to think about it; I envy my cat, sleeping at my feet, who does not have this unfulfillable need.
The Consequences of Religion
Though I fully believe that religion is an invention, not a revelation of truth, I do not condemn or look down on those who are religious; that would be absurd, as religion is a necessary part of the lives of humans in general. I do, however, find it disturbing how many ways modern religion negatively impacts the lives of so many people in the world. Despite some potentially harmful superstitions, religion as a whole was not a major problem until monotheism came into existence. When a religion accepts the idea of multiple deities, it is not difficult to embrace the deities of another group should the two come in contact. These are the gods here, those are the gods there, and that is that. When first a group of humans decided that there is only one god, however, things began to get messy. If there is only one god, then those who believe in other gods are wrong. Depending on the style of the monotheistic religion, they must be corrected and converted to save their souls, or even slaughtered for their heresy.
Monotheism has continued to cause problems in modern Western society. Judeo-Christian morals have strongly influenced the social code of morals and ethics, and even laws which are often justified simply as "God's will." Monotheistic religion has been used to justify wars, racial intolerance, religious intolerance, and gender inequality. Notably in current events, there is a battle between those who see gender variance and homosexual behavior as wrong based on their religion, and those who see no harm in it or accept it as natural. The lives of a large percentage of people are determined by laws which allow or disallow same-sex marriage, adoption for same-sex couples, gender reassignment surgery and hormone therapy, and a plethora of related issues. Historically in many polytheistic cultures this problem never existed; such variances were accepted as normal or natural, and were common and unstigmatized. Even today, in areas where Christian influence is rejected or minimized, many indigenous cultures still practice the traditional acceptance of these variances.
It is clear that human religion is not about to disappear. One hopes, however, that its power will be used in the future to promote tolerance and acceptance rather than hate, violence, and bigotry.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)