The Reluctant Carnivore Diet

** Warning: The Following Blog Contains Hypocrisy, Contradictory Logic, and Downright Flaky Conclusions **


Motivated by our love of animals and by some documentaries depicting the conditions under which many animals are raised for food, my wife and I tried to be vegetarian a number of years ago. We lasted about a week and then had a big, juicy steak.

Intellectually I support the idea of vegetarianism. It seems to me that eating another sentient being for food when we can choose to not to do so (and still survive) just isn't the right thing to do. Other carnivores don't have a choice because they don't have the mental capacity to derive an alternative diet that still supplies the necessary nutritional requirements for survival. We humans do have that capacity and many of us live in circumstances where the abundance of other food would cause no hardship if we were to say, "I know I'm a carnivore, but I choose to exercise my uniquely human intellect not to behave like one."

But tell that to my stomach. I was raised during a time when having meat at every meal, and plenty of it, was considered a healthy diet. My father worked in the meat department of a supermarket, and felt proud of his ability to supply his family with steaks, roasts, and chops (maybe slightly out of date, of course). And in those days beef was prized for its "marbling," or network of fat in the meat, which gave it added flavor and lots of cholesterol. I grew up thinking a meal without meat was just not a proper meal.

And so, despite the intellectual abhorrence of eating meat, I still honestly really, really like it. I find that it's possible to just not think about those pesky little moral or ethical issues as I sink my teeth into that medium rare hunk of cow. Still, it is fair to say that I'm a reluctant carnivore.

Some time ago my wife and I came up with a way to reconcile our inner carnivore with our inner animal lover. We call it the reluctant carnivore diet . Here's how it came about.

We had been snorkeling one day when we came upon a group of 20-30 small squid, all lined up facing us with their tentacles gathered together in a neat point. Something about this formation and the way they behaved was quite endearing. As we swam toward them the formation broke like a chorus line and swung open to allow us to pass through, then slowly closed and all the squid pivoted in place to face us again. We repeated this several times, and it was almost as if we were dancing a ballet with them.

At this point we had never eaten squid, but later that day we saw squid listed on the restaurant menu where we ate dinner. We looked at each other and simultaneously said, "No way!" We had just met these creatures in the wild and we simply couldn't eat them now. I'm sure squid is delicious and we may be missing a wonderful culinary treat, but we have decided that we don't need to eat squid and we can choose not to do so.

The reluctant carnivore diet grew out of this experience, and we have followed it pretty well for quite some time. The principle is simple -- all meat and fish we have eaten in the past is still ok, but if we "meet" a new creature we haven't eaten we choose not to start. We also try to avoid eating new animals we haven't encountered in person, but we have sometimes waffled on this. Besides squid, some other examples on our do-not-eat list include most African game animals, guinea pig, octopus, and some real easy ones -- dogs, cats, squirrels, etc.

We readily admit the philosophical wimpiness of this "personal encounter" principle -- it really doesn't have the moral imperative or logical consistency that underpins true vegetarianism. And we still have to wrestle with the fact that we continue to eat critters that are just as cute and endearing as the ones we now refuse.

But it makes us feel better.

Another Ray of Sunshine!!

Given the way our government and economy seem to be imploding, good news is hard to come by these days. But there are some shining moments out there if you can just ignore the ranting and raving for a bit and be open instead to news of good people doing good things.

I wrote not long ago about Greg Mortenson's projects in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and earlier about my friends who do volunteer work in Africa. Here's another uplifting example.

His name is Dr. Sanduk Ruit. He is a Nepalese ophthalmologist who has restored the sight for thousands of rural poor in Nepal. A skilled surgeon, he could have left Nepal and had a very lucrative career in Europe or the U.S. Instead, he chose to remain in Nepal and devote his life to alleviating the burden of blindness of those who could never afford a surgical procedure of the sort practiced in the developed world.

Ruit has pioneered a simple and inexpensive technique of cataract surgery that he has taught to surgeons around the world, resulting in the restoration of sight for an estimated 3-4 million people. He estimates that he personally has performed 100,000 cataract surgeries in his 30-year career. Restoring the sight of people in developing countries is particularly beneficial, given the difficult quality of life for someone with a disability, and the extra burden such a person places on family and community.

I first became aware of Ruit's work through an MSNBC story that focuses on the heartwarming case of Raj Kaliya Dhanuk, and elderly Nepalese woman who traveled for days to reach one of Ruit's mobile surgical camps.

"For nearly a year, cataracts have clouded out all sight from the 70-year-old grandmother's world. With no money, she assumed she'd die alone in darkness. But now she waits quietly outside the operating room for her turn to meet Nepal's God of Sight [Ruit]

'I am desperate. If only I could see my family again,' she whispers in her native tongue. 'I feel so bad when I hear the baby cry because I can't help him. I want to pick him up.'

...Dhanuk, who's the size of a 10-year-old child, is carried in and laid on the table. She cannot see Ruit or the visiting Thai surgeon who's practicing the technique on patients across the room.

"I'm afraid," she says, worried it won't be successful. Her long silver-streaked hair is pulled into the scrub cap, and thin golden bangles glow against her dark, cracked arms.

But she lies still and silent. All she really wants is to be able to feed herself again, go to the toilet alone and get back to her chores. She doesn't want to be lonely and frightened in one of the world's poorest countries, where life is as harsh and rugged as the Himalayas that shape it...

The next morning at the eye camp in Hetauda, Ruit stands in front of the hospital in the warm sun looking at five rows of about 200 patients from the day before. All of them, bundled in worn shawls and knit caps, have eye patches waiting to be removed.

Dhanuk is third in line on the front row. As soon as the bandages are removed, her face fills with life. She leaps to her feet smiling and pulling her hands to her chest in a prayer position, a traditional Nepalese way of giving thanks.

After nearly a year of total blindness, Dhanuk drinks in the blue sky, the green grass and all the other patients around her. She easily counts fingers, and then Ruit asks her to squeeze his nose if she can see it. It only takes a second for her jump up and grab it with both hands. Applause erupts in this moment Ruit calls the power of vision."

As I said, a Ray of Sunshine!

Lessons from Living in Hawai'i

Here are some of the things I've learned from living in Hawai'i for the last nine years:

• Palm trees. There are a gazillion different kinds. They cost a lot of money to be pruned. They have to be pruned every 6-9 months.
• Trade winds are better than tornadoes.
• Banana tree sap is the world's most permanent dye.
• Bananas. A gazillion kinds. The smaller the tastier.
• It takes two years to grow a pineapple in your yard.
• Aloha means more than "hello" and "goodbye."
• In the Hawai'ian language the same words mean "sweet person" and "fat person."
• There were glaciers in Hawai'i.
• Human impact. Before humans came to Hawai'i there were NO mosquitoes, cockroaches, ants, rats, mice, or any other mammal except for bats and seals.
• You can fall in love with the breeze.
• Air can smell really good.
• If the supply connection t0 the mainland is threatened, the first things to go from supermarket shelves are toilet paper and rice.
• Lava deserves a close look.
• Many American visitors refer to going home as "going back to the States." We usually don't correct them because (a) we don't want to embarrass them and (b) the mainland feels like a different world to us, too.

Embracing Your Inner Geezer

As I pointed out in an earlier blog (The Power of Negative Thinking), a central finding from research in my field of Social Psychology is that stereotypes can have powerful influences on our behavior and judgments, and these effects can occur even when we are not aware of the process.

A particularly interesting phenomenon (to me, anyway, as I get older) has to do with aging stereotypes -- widespread beliefs and expectations about the characteristics and abilities of older people -- us geezers, in other words. In our society the stereotypical beliefs are mostly negative and have to do with loss of physical and cognitive abilities. One thing that makes aging stereotypes different from other forms of stereotyping, such as those directed at minority groups, is that all of us eventually become a member of the target group.

Note the implication of this. When we're young, we hold negative beliefs about all those "old farts" in society. At some point we finally become an old fart ourselves, and we have to deal somehow with the fact that those negative beliefs pertain to US.

Psychologist Beca Levy has proposed recently that many people may come to embody the aging stereotypes, with important personal consequences. In her words, "...stereotypes are embodied when their assimilation from the surrounding culture leads to self-definitions that, in turn, influence functioning and health" (Levy, 2009). The power of the influence is illustrated by a study of 50 year-old people whose self-perceptions of aging were measured and then their health and level of functioning was assessed over the next 20 years. Those who had more positive self-perceptions of aging at 50 had fewer health problems and lived an average of 7.5 years longer than those with negative perceptions! Importantly, these differences were not due to differences in how healthy participants were at the beginning of the study.

This study illustrates that the direction and strength of embodiment varies across people, with corresponding variations in the direction and strength of the effects. Other research has demonstrated that the influence of embodiment can vary from moment to moment, depending on the salience of stereotyped qualities in a particular situation -- that is, how much a quality like memory or physical strength is relevant to the task at hand. Imagine, for example, that you're "elderly" and you're trying to do your income taxes -- a rather complex cognitive task if there ever was one. Imagine also that you've just seen a movie depicting older people as befuddled and confused. Research mimicking this situation has shown that you are more likely to have a difficult time with the task than if you had not seen that negative movie. But importantly a movie that emphasized the positive qualities of aging, like wisdom and patience, might lead to doing the task even better.

These moment-to-moment effects of embodiment can occur even when the older person isn't thinking consciously about the stereotype. This is perhaps the most insidious aspect of all stereotypes -- they may influence us even when we aren't aware of it. It's one thing to see a movie that was obviously portraying aging in a certain way and then immediately going home to do your income taxes -- it's likely that you would be aware of the movie's message as you became confused trying to figure out the IRS instructions on, say, depreciation of tangible assets. You could consciously try to counter negative aspects of the movie or embrace positive ones and doing so might influence how well you do at your task. But many stereotypic cues are more subtle and we often don't even notice them -- the brief depiction of someone in a t.v. ad, or the quick encounter with the elderly Walmart greeter. Research has shown that these subtle, unconscious cues also may influence performance.

An example of this impact of subtle stereotypic cues is in another study by Levy. Groups of older participants were shown either positive or negative words associated with aging by flashing them on a screen very quickly -- so fast that people couldn't identify the exact word, but still encoded it (in other words, they weren't aware of the word but Levy could show that they had in fact processed it). Shortly afterward the participants performed seemingly unrelated tasks that required either memory or physical balance. Those who had been unconsciously primed with negative words did less well on both the cognitive and physical tests.

The implication of all this is that we may underestimate the impact of stereotypes on our functioning as we grow older and mistakenly attribute performance decline to aging rather than correcting attributing it to beliefs about aging. But this research also illustrates that if we embrace our inner geezer and focus on the positive aspects of aging we can overcome some of the negative expectations that lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy of cognitive and physical decline.

Grey Power!!




References:

Levy, Becca R.(2009). Stereotype emodiment: A psychosocial approach to aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol 18 (6), pp. 332-336.

Levy, Becca R. (2009). Leifheit-Limson, Eric. The stereotype-matching effect: Greater influence on functioning when age stereotypes correspond to outcomes. Psychology and Aging. Vol 24(1), pp. 230-233.

Bankers' Math -- Part Quatre

We've all heard about the financial industry profits being way up lately, even as banks are stingy about loaning money and as their CEO's are making big bonuses. Here's another example of why they have certainly lost my respect.

My wife and I travel quite a bit outside of the U.S. We've found that one of the most economical ways to get foreign currency is by using an ATM card in a local machine. Withdrawals and balance inquiries used to be free, in the good old days. Over the years, though, banks have found it lucrative to charge if you use an ATM not in their network. These transactions are electronic and probably cost the bank almost nothing, yet the going fee is $2.50 for a withdrawal, possibly levied by both your bank and the one that owns the ATM. In the case of a foreign transactions, most banks, including ours, tacks on an additional 1% currency conversion fee. Even with these fees, however, it is still generally cheaper than paying 3% per transaction with a credit card, which is the going rate for most card companies (most, but not all -- see below).

Well, the CEO of our bank (First Hawaiian) must be bucking for a bigger bonus, because we received a notice recently that the fee for each ATM transaction in a foreign country will now be $5 -- double the old fee!! Five dollars to have the bank give me back some of MY money?! So, if we go to an ATM say, in France and withdraw $100 in Euros, it will cost us at least $5 + $1, or 6%, and possibly as much as 7.5% if the foreign bank levies a $2.50 fee, or 11% if they raise their own ATM fee to $5. Ridiculous!

Our way around this is to obtain a free debit/ATM card offered by Vanguard, with whom we have a retirement money market account. Because we have a lot of our retirement funds invested in Vanguard, there are no transaction fees at all, though for foreign withdrawals they will still levy the %1 conversion fee. We also recently obtained a Capital One credit card, which doesn't add the 3% foreign transaction fee most other cards do, at least not yet.

So for now we've found away around banker greed. But I'm sure those CEO's are thinking of more ways to get us. After all, it's how they earn those big bonuses!

Fix Health Care Before I Die, Please!

I've written once before about my concern over the way Health Care Reform is going. Or not going, as it should be more accurately described.

Frankly, it is a sad commentary on our political system that all the time and effort congress has spent on this issue may be wasted if, as now seems likely, no real change in our health care system happens. In particular I blame the obstructionism of the Republicans, though the stunning ineptitude of the Democrats is also a reason.

The Republicans continue to oppose the current health care bill, which no longer contains a government option as an alternative choice to corporate insurance, let alone any kind of proposal for a single payer system similar to France, Canada, Great Britain, and several other countries. Even the present proposal, Republicans argue, will be too expensive and will lead to too much government involvement in health care. The facts don't support either of these arguments.

There is abundant evidence that health care in America is inferior to that of the rest of the first world, and that we need to fix this -- assuming, of course that we believe our country should rank at least equal to other modern nations in providing access to affordable health care. In our local paper, West Hawaii Today, a recent letter to the editor captures much of my view so well I've reprinted it below.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:33 AM HST Revealing the ranking

I'd like to correct Mr. Radmilovich's letter. The U.S. health care ranking isn't around 20th, it's 37th (World Health Organization). France is number one.

You might ask in what ways? How about hospital beds per 1,000 in population? France has 8.4, U.S. only 3.6. Winner France. Number of doctors per 1,000 in population? France has 3.37, U.S. only 2.3. Winner France. Life expectancy? France 80.87 years, U.S. 78.14. Winner again France.

As a matter of fact the only two ways the U.S. beats France in health care rankings is the percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), France spends only 11 percent, U.S. spends a whopping 17.2 percent -- and cost per person. The U.S. pays $6,096.20 per person, France pays $3,464.70 per person annually, That's $2,631.50 per person, or about 43 percent less than the U.S. pays, and France is number one and we are number 37. And France covers 100 percent of its citizens, while the U.S. covers about one in six of its citizens, (source, nationmaster.com)

This nation's four decades long experiment with "for profit" health care has been a cruel, inhuman, and expensive nightmare. And I don't see anything coming from either major political party that's going to make it much better.

H.R. 676 is the best way to tackle this mess, and nobody in corporate-owned Washington is saying anything about it.

Mark Stone

Kailua-Kona

So, let's see. France (and other countries with health systems ranked higher than ours) provides more health care to more people for less money. If we're so superior to the rest of the world, as the Republicans insist we are, then surely we can figure out a way to accomplish what .... pittooweey!....France has done. Please, let's get on with it!

I Got My New GPS!

In an earlier post I wrote about why I needed a new GPS. Well, Santa dug into his toy bag and brought me a new one for Christmas. Oh, yessssss! This baby will do practically everything except maybe tie your hiking boots. Speaking of hiking boots, maybe I should get a new pair to go with the upgraded GPS?..... Anyway, my hiking buddy from Oregon and I gave the new toy...er, TOOL, a good test last week, and I'm happy to report it passed with flying colors.

My friend and I are both the same age, which is the time of life when men still have the drive to do stupid risky things but have bodies that can no longer get them out of trouble when they do. For the past couple of years we have been exploring old lava flows here in Hawai'i. This is tough hiking, because lava cools to become razor sharp rock which will shred skin at a touch, particularly skin that now seems to bruise or bleed in a strong breeze. It is also often loose, jumbly, and uneven -- a particular challenge for those with a less than perfect sense of balance.

However, it also cools in some of the most fascinating patterns you can imagine. Like stone browny batter, with drips and drops, tangles and splatters. The patterns are endless, and each flow seems to have different characteristics that make them always fascinating to explore.

One of the features of lava flows here on the island of Hawai'i is that they often form tubes -- channels of lava that are completely enclosed and can be miles long. In fact, this is how lava can travel so far from the source -- the walls of the tubes insulate the molten magma so that it stays fluid. As an eruption dies down, these tubes empty out and leave tunnels that can be a real thrill to poke around in. Of course, it is also a teensy bit dangerous, which can make it all the more attractive!

Now, back to my GPS. When I got my new model I noticed one of its features is called "geocaching." I then learned that geocaching has been around for about 10 years, and according to Wikipedia, it is "...an outdoor activity in which the participants use a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver or other navigational techniques to hide and seek containers (called "geocaches" or "caches") anywhere in the world. A typical cache is a small waterproof container (usually a tupperware or ammo box) containing a logbook. Larger containers can also contain items for trading, usually toys or trinkets of little value. Geocaching is most often described as a "game of high-tech hide and seek", sharing many aspects with orienteering, treasure-hunting, and waymarking .... Geocaches are currently placed in over 100 countries around the world and on all seven continents, including Antarctica.^[1] As of February 8, 2010, there are over 984,900 active geocaches over the world.^[2]"

It turns out that somebody hid a geocache near an unmapped lava tub about 30 miles from where I live and published the coordinates on Geocache.Com, I downloaded the position into my new GPS and my friend and I set out to find it. Yup, the new toy guided us right to the spot, requiring a hike across open lava, of course, and in an area that we would never have thought to look for a tube. When I say it guided us to the spot, I actually mean to the coordinates. As anyone who has had a senior (or junior) moment can attest, just because you're within 15-20 feet of something doesn't mean you can see it. I must admit there was a tad bit of luck in finding the actual box containing the cache -- if we had approached from a different angle we might have stood right over it and not seen it.

We then proceeded to hike through the tube, which required flashlights (next time we have to take extra batteries!) and a smidge of stupidity. Oh yes, and just a little bit of blood.