Cold turkey (mmm, turkey!)

– In which Dorn battles with his inner carnivore.

S

unday dinner last week was a grilled ribeye steak, cooked just right—starting to char on the outside, still pink and dripping on the inside. It was SO GOOD. It’s really a psychological superfood, like chocolate! It is for me anyway. 

The great thing about steak, or meat in general, is you don’t have to work at it to come out with a delicious meal. It’s tasty seared, sauted, spitted, stewed, fried, roasted or even raw. And when it’s cooked up right, it’s just out of this world! 

Back when Kathleen and I were first married, long before you were born, I was a vegetarian for a while. I’d learned a little about ecosystem dynamics in college, including the rule of 10s: 100 lbs of grass = 10 lbs of herbivore (cow) = 1 pound of carnivore (me). Even back in the seventies, it was simple math that the more population we had, the less sustainable was the idea of eating meat.

My vege-plan soon collapsed—I found it was just too hard making tasty nutritious meatless meals, and meat was so easy. When a cow or pig seemed almost designed do the work of turning vegetables into a delicious meal for me, why should I slave away at trying to make a meal out of soybeans and lentils? I shouldn’t! So I’ve been living off the metabolic labors of other animals pretty much all of my adult life.

Every now and then I get a twinge of guilt. The latest one was triggered by a joke/rant by Bill Maher, who noted that the Amazon rainforest was being burned down by cattle ranchers to make room for hamburgers. My first thought was how awful it was that they would destroy the rainforest. My second was how awful it was anyone would support cattle ranchers doing that, by buying their meat. But surely that’s not me! I don’t eat so much meat that my habits would have any effect on South American cattle economics or rainforest survivability! Do I?

I checked it out. From quora.com, I found that a steer might yield the equivalent of 1800 hamburgers. 

(Irrelevant side note: When I googled “how many burgers are in a cow?”, another hit also came up, the answer to “how many cows are in a burger?”. It varies with the processing methods used, but McDonalds says that each of its burgers could have the meat of maybe 100 different cows in it. [*]

If I eat 360 burgers a year—I don’t (I don’t think!), but it keeps the math simple—that amounts to about 20% of a cow’s meat. Each cow needs about 35 acres of grassland[*], so my appetite for meat needs about 7 acres of grassland to satisfy. 

Every acre of the Amazon rainforest can absorb about 1.3 tons of CO2 annually[*], so if the grassland used to raise my hamburgers was created by destroying rainforest, it resulted in about 10 extra tons of CO2 a year in the atmosphere.

Satellite image of burning rainforest
Satellite image of South American rainforest fires

This is twice the carbon footprint I produced by commuting to work[*], which was already high because I chose to live 75 miles south of my job (though I mitigated my choice by telecommuting and using public transportation)

I told myself that I had to commute because I had to work, but I can’t claim that I have to eat meat! I’m pretty much an omnivore, and I pretty much like everything I eat. 

Ironically, almost the only thing in my entire 65 years that tasted so bad to me that I had to take it out of my mouth rather than swallow it, was one of the early commercial plant-based meat substitutes (a vegetarian hot dog) that came on the market maybe 40 years ago, and that I tried out of curiosity. 

(Irrelevant side note: The only other time I ever had to do this was when I tried to eat “Phoenix feet” I had ordered from the greasy-spoon Dim Sum restaurant on New Hampshire Avenue near where I used to work.)

But nowadays, with plant-based “Beyond beef” and “Impossible burgers”, I don’t even have to give up the taste of meat. I’ve tried the impossible burger at restaurants, and it really tastes like meat. Although it didn’t really taste like good meat. I got it at a restaurant that was known for its hamburgers, but this one tasted more like meat loaf. Passable meat loaf, to be sure, but it wasn’t a match for a greasy, umamic, carcinogenic, char-broiled burger!

Even so, the bottom line is that it is harder and harder for me to excuse my failure to do my part for the planet by giving up, or at least cutting back on, the meat in my diet. It’s not even a sacrifice, not really, just an inconvenience that comes with any lifestyle change. 

I’ve heard that if you want to successfully change the way you eat, you must set yourself simple absolute rules and follow them absolutely. “No more french fries, ever” might be a successful rule, but “No fries except on special occasions”, or “Always leave about half the fries on the plate” are almost certain recipes for backsliding into old habits. 

But I’m not ready to say “No more meat!”, that’s too absolute. I can’t think of any clever argument to justify this reluctance, I just don’t want to give up this guilty pleasure completely.

So here’s what I’ve decided to do: 

No more cow meat until Thanksgiving. Then I’ll take stock (ha ha, stock, get it?), see how I’m doing, and decide where to go next. Plus to make cheating less attractive, I’ll report how I did in a post so everyone will know my lapses, or lack thereof. 

Thanksgiving is about two months away, so by my crude calculations this commitment will reduce my carbon footprint by about ⅙ of ten tons, or 1.7 tons of carbon dioxide. We’ll see.

*   *   *

This was a difficult post to write. I first decided I should do something about my environmentally irresponsible carnivorous ways, and then I decided that I might be able to write a good blog post about it. But then (over a bowl of chili con carne) I weakened, and thought maybe I wasn’t ready to make such a big lifestyle change. Maybe I better forget the whole thing, even though I already had an outline of the post in my head. 

I reached my lowest point when I thought, maybe I could not drop the meat from my diet at all, and just write about my internal struggles with the concept of going meatless. I could score some karmic points by just thinking through the process honestly, and not making excuses when I failed to muster the strength to change. I pretty much had no shame by then. 

But as I wrote, I was forced to think through the implications of my diet, and my reasons for not wanting to do the right thing. The implications were undeniable (even if the math was sloppy), and my reasons were indefensible. So by the time I was done, I decided I would do my best to conquer my weaker, hungrier self. 

The writing was a good experience for me. So far at this blogging business, I’ve been writing about something I had done, but this time, it felt like instead I was doing something I had written about. It made the experience more powerful for me, and I think it—and the promised followup post—might increase my chances of being able to make a permanent change for the better. 

Thanks as always for listening. If my posts are getting too self-absorbed or navel-gazey for you, please let me know in a comment. 

Dorn
9/30/2019

Optimist prime

– In which Dorn loses THE argument with Kathleen.

O

One of the things I like to feel smug about is my enlightened skeptical view toward my own beliefs. I have even started accumulating notes for a blog post on healthy self-doubt. I’ve already got a cool quote to use by Oliver Wendall Holmes, “Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not true” (from a Wash Post review of Oliver Wendell Holmes: A Life in War, Law, and Ideas by Stephen Budiansky). I’m debating whether to include in that blog post the concept of confirmation bias, where we reinforce our own beliefs by hungrily ingesting supporting evidence, but ignoring, to the extent we can, any contrary evidence.

I’m also an optimist. Some might say smugly so, certainly intentionally so. I work hard at it. Many’s the time when Kathleen and I have debated philosophical points that she’s said, “You’re such an optimist!”. “No, you’re just a pessimist!”, I might reply. “I’m not a pessimist, I’m a realist.” “No, I’m the realist.” “Are not” “Am too” “Am not” “Are too” and so forth.

My smugnitude was tested recently. I was poking a stick into the internets to see what I might pry out, and I found a scholarly review article, “Costs and benefits of realism and optimism” (Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2015 Mar; 28(2): 194–198.) In it, I found that “unrealistic optimism”, also referred to as “optimism bias”, is “a robust phenomenon across a variety of tasks and domains” that is accepted widely enough to be the topic of multiple papers in psychiatry and philosophy. Uh-oh, I don’t like where this is going!

Apparently, the question of whether unrealistic optimism exists has long been settled (“yes”), and now thinkers are pondering whether it actually does any good. There is a theory, which the paper didn’t really embrace, that unrealistic optimism, while making one’s view of the world and his or her place in it less accurate, nevertheless conveys some sort of benefit to the optimist.

The notion of “benefit” was picked apart. Does unrealistic optimism make you feel better, psychologically or maybe even biologically? Or does it make your situation (in society, for example) objectively better? Philosopher types talked of “epistemic” benefits, which as near as I can understand means it gets you closer to evidence-based truth. 

It is well-known in clinical circles that people experiencing depression tend to have a more realistic understanding of some situations, such as their own present and probable future well-being, than people, including optimists, without the condition. Most people, and especially optimists, apparently underestimate with alarming predictability the chances that something bad will ever happen to them.

This put me in a real spot. Do I stand up against confirmation bias, and accept that I have optimism bias? Or do I give in to it, and continue to tell myself that my optimism is real realism, and just ignore any evidence to the contrary?

Well, I did what any thinker would do in such a situation: I scoured (well, I browsed) the internet for more evidence that supported the conclusion that I wanted to believe. Okay, so “unrealistic optimism” is a thing. It will take me a while to un-learn that, but maybe it’s counterbalanced by “unrealistic pessimism”? If I can’t win my philosophical debate with Kathleen, maybe I can at least tie?

Turns out there’s a lot less discussion of unrealistic pessimism out there. It exists, apparently, but only in extreme situations. I found the abstract to an article, “Unrealistic Pessimism”, from the Journal of Social Psychology, Jul 1, 2010: 511-516. Here’s the abstract in its damning entirety:

Various data suggest that individuals tend to be unrealistically optimistic about the future. People believe that negative events are less likely to happen to them than to others. The present study examined if the optimistic bias could be demonstrated if a threat is not (as it has been researched up to the present) potential, incidental, and familiar, but real, common, and unfamiliar. The present research was conducted after the explosion at the atomic power station in Chernobyl, and it was concerned with the perception of threat to one’s own and to others’ health due to consequences of radiation. The female subjects believed that their own chance of experiencing such health problems were better than the chances of others. Thus, in these specific conditions, unrealistic optimism was not only reduced but the reverse effect was obtained: unrealistic pessimism.

So it would take a Chernobyl-scale event for me to even score a draw in the philosophical debate with Kathleen I mentioned earlier. I’m sunk. The only thing I can think of to do is to drop my smug superiority of my mastery over confirmation bias, ignore the facts and try to retain some shred of my optimism bias so I don’t get trounced too badly by Kathleen. And I’ll either fail, and be able once again to feel smug about my optimism, or I’ll succeed, and be able to feel smug about conquering my former smugness about my optimism. It’s a win-win! (It’s working already!).

Here’s a funny comic about confirmation bias from a funny online strip, Wondermark.

Thanks,
Dorn
9/22/2019

PS. On reviewing this post, Kathleen points out that her arguments wouldn’t seem so pessimistic if she didn’t have to spend so much time injecting reality into my optimism. How can I answer that, now that Science has confirmed it?

Here’s a joke from Kathleen:

Socrates about to drink the hemlock, saying 'Is this glass half empty or half full?'

A High Wind in Jamaica

– In which Dorn reads a seafaring yarn.

T

he Bookshop was on TV this week. It’s a nice little movie about a British widow in the 1950’s who opens a bookshop and runs afoul of the local Powers That Be. At one point she befriends and hires precocious young Christine to help out in the store. While she is trying to interest the rest of the town in Lolita, she gives Christine A High Wind in Jamaica, saying it’s a book about “good pirates and evil children”.

That piqued my curiosity, so I looked around for the book. Not in the local library, and not available in the digital library either (a frequent occurrence with books published before e-books were commonplace). Richard Hughes wrote it in 1929, so it was old enough that it might be available in one of the free digital resources. It wasn’t in Project Gutenburg, but there was a legible copy from the digital library of India in the Internet Archive.

It was a great short summer read, and over too soon. The story is of children sent to England after a hurricane destroys their Jamaica home, who on the voyage are captured by pirates. It’s brimming with playful insights into the minds of children, parents, and pirates. There are a few shocking moments, a few brushes with darker themes, and some casual racism of the kind apparently allowed in the early parts of the 1900’s.

The central theme of the book was the amorality of children, which didn’t really make them evil, just innocent of the whole concept of good and evil. Several of the reviews on Goodreads suggested the story was a mix of Peter Pan and The Lord of the Flies, with perhaps a bit of Heart of Darkness thrown in.

But I found it much lighter reading than that–to me it seemed like a mixture of the satire of Mark Twain with The Incorrigible Children of Ashton Place (one of my all-time favorite stories), with a dash of Bonfire of the Vanities sprinkled on top.

In its time, A High Wind in Jamaica was a best-seller, and considered quite controversial and ground-breaking for its unsentimental portrayal of children’s psyches. It made some “best 20th century literature” lists, but I had never heard of it. I’m glad I stumbled on it, though, and I commend it to you. You can get a PDF of it off of the Internet Archive.

Thanks,
Dorn
9/19/2019

A Sense of Place

In this painting I’m returning to a theme I explored once before, many years ago, with my nieces as subjects. The current painting has my grandkids waiting at the Ice Cream Window at B&Js Carryout.

One reason I have painted B&J Carryout in Accokeek many times is that, to me, it seems the one location in “downtown” Accokeek where there is a genuine “sense of place”.

A “sense of place” is a characteristic that some geographic places have and some do not. The term is often used in relation to those characteristics that make a place special or unique, as well as to those that foster a sense of authentic human attachment and belonging. It is hard to fake and too often planned development fails to take it into account. Right now, Royal Farms is proposing a chain gas station/convenience store across Livingston Road from B&Js. Besides being out of scale with our little center (the project has 58 parking places!) and its likelihood to interfere with the ability of the Accokeek Volunteer Fire Department to aid the community with fast responses to emergencies, I think the real reason I oppose the project is that it will be detrimental to our sense of place. Once a sense of place is destroyed, it doesn’t really come back.

Supercalligraphic

– In which Dorn misinterprets an Art Show.

I

 didn’t expect to be writing about art again so soon, but yesterday evening we went to an art show of one of Kathleen’s old friends from her days teaching at GWU, that turned out to be a lot of fun for me, and worth remarking about. 

It’s a two-person show called “Umbra” by Kathleen’s friend Becky Bafford and fellow sculptor Kini Collins, at the Horowitz Center at Howard County Community College.

As the title suggests, the show is about shadows, and every piece is created and displayed in a way that allowed its shadow to be part of the art. The pieces themselves are sculpture, so you have a nice three-dimensional foreground and two-dimensional light-dark background going on.

The show is also about “fossils, relics, and memories”, according to the brochure, and I thought it did a good job of evoking things past and gone. Many of the pieces are representative (or partly so) of objects found in nature, as the wall of chrysalis shapes above.

What I liked best were some shapes by Becky Bafford that triggered my delight response at two things I enjoy contemplating–(1) art that I don’t quite understand at a rational level, and (2) written languages that I don’t know. There were a series of shapes there that to me felt like they were three-dimensional calligraphy, spelling out a message I couldn’t quite grasp.

Looking at these shapes, it was possible to imagine the pushes, pulls, and gestures that went into forming each one. It was like watching one of those TV documentaries with a closeup of a Chinese national treasure slowly composing text in freehand chinese characters with a sumi brush, only with the added complexity that the character strokes all had depth, as well as width and height.

What a rich language that would be, that it had to be written in three dimensions! It was a conceit that really appealed to me, despite my suspicion that I had probably missed what the artist was envisioning when she created them.

The works by the two artists complement each other extremely well, both in mood and in the skill and subtlety of the use of surface and shadow. Moving from Ms Bafford’s room to Ms Collins’s, I was delighted to see another piece that reinforced my interpretation–there was a wall devoted to what looked the world to me like three-dimensional Babylonic cuneiform! (My photo doesn’t really do it justice.) The title of this piece was “Letters”, which makes me optimistic that maybe here I was even thinking along similar lines to the artist.

Even setting aside my personal twist on the work here, the show was a treat to see–the works are well made and artfully displayed, and evoked strong emotional reactions in the audience there. An evening well spent! Here’s the show info, if you find yourself near there with a few minutes to spend. The show runs until Sept 22.

Thanks,
Dorn
9/13/2019