Eating Animals By Jonathan Safran Foer

Eating Animals is more of a documentary from a curious citizen then a journalist. Foer looks into the ethics both in theory and in practice of eating meat, so he can think about what he should be feeding his son. This is an important fact while reading it because Foer comes in with little to no bias, and is not trying to prove a fact, and comes to the conclusion to become a vegetarian (he probably would have rather found out he could eat as much meat as he wanted to). First he goes through the theory of eating meat. It was at this part that I did not really hear his arguments. He tries to extrapolate from the fact that some meat, namely dogs, would seem disgusting to many of us. Is a dog different just because you might own one? Maybe a chicken should be looked upon the same way. I don’t feel that this line of reasoning is fair because if anything it is the opposite that may be true. I am absolutely not going to start eating dog, not only because its not kosher but because it would be nasty to me, but I have no problem if other cultures or peoples do. It isn’t a theoretical disgust but a cultural one that Foer is talking about.

Specifically, Jewish culture, at least American Jewish culture, has no problem eating meat. While there are certainly those that are vegetarian, on the whole it is not surprising to see Sabbath meals with multiple types of meat, whether in chulent or not. This culture is so strong that I have heard of friends who have turned down meals when they found out the meals where going to be vegetarian. It has gone beyond the obligation to eat meat as part of the requirement of happiness on the Sabbath and entered into it’s own. Inherently, I don’t see any problem with this. It seems clear from the Bible and the Halakha that animals can and should be used for human consumption. While certainly commandments against making the animals miserable (Tzar Ba'alei Chaim) and a slaughtering method that is as painless as possible are stated, these are ways to put as little harm in the animals, but it assumes that we have the right to eat the meat in the first place.

            The second half of Eating Animals is a much more practical discussion of how meat and chicken is processed nowadays. I am not going to go through all the details of what he discovers but it is truly disturbing. After reading what goes on these farms, I have done a lot more research since reading the book and I really cant believe the atrocities that go on. It is understandable to some extent because as a nation we are asking for so much meat that it becomes necessary to be as efficient as possible to serve the country. However, this has come as a complete detriment to all the animals and the environment as a whole. Foer comes to the conclusion that he can not participate in this madness and so vegetarianism is basically the only option in America. He believes that if all these bad things are happening he cannot give money to them, eat their meat, or feed it to his son, on moral grounds. I certainly understand this, but I don’t see it as the only conclusion. Just like I feel that I can use and add to the internet for lots of good things even though so many bad and inappropriate things happen on it, I can eat meat as long as I don’t succumb to the problem.

While I was reading all the bad things that happen at these plants, I wondered to what extent these problems exist in kosher plants. Some of them could not as they would completely invalidate the meat. At the same time much of the problems in how the animals are kept and even some of the others are still there.

            It’s for this reason I decided to limit the amount of meat I consume. At this point I allow myself to eat meat on Shabbat and one other meal during the week. This seems to me something that I can change and do my part while still being sustainable. How could I never have Chickies or Golan ever again? The idea originally came from the idea of being a weekday vegetarian. One does not need to go to extremes. If we all just ate less meat, much of the environmental problems that exist would no longer. We don’t need to become vegetarians or radically change our lifestyles to do this, but we can not make the demand of meat in this country dictate how poorly they are treated.

            At the same time as I have been limiting my meat intake, I recently started taking a course in YU on ritual slaughter which by the end would certify me to slaughter fowl. The main reason I wanted to do really had nothing to do with eating meat. Ritual slaughter is part of the Jewish tradition and I had the opportunity to learn this skill that has been in the tradition for ages. At the same time it also would allow me to make sure the meat that I eat is treated as fairly as possible. Before beginning the course, I visited a Muslim slaughterhouse where a friend of mine goes to slaughter his own chickens. Since it is done on a small scale, it wasn’t depressing as the videos and books show (most of our meat does not come from places like this). While at first it looked disgusting, it wasn’t depressing. What amazed me was how moral my friends slaughtering looked. Even compared to the Muslims, who were very friendly towards us, and have extremely similar customs, it was over quickly and with great meticulousness to make sure the chicken was pained as little as possible. Hopefully, in our days the meat industry will come to the point where it will have to treat its animals with more respect. What you can do is not make them feel like they have to supply you with all of it.

            

Moonwalking with Einstein by Joshua Foer

      Moonwalking with Einstein is the story of how Joshua Foer went from an investigative reporter for a minor news network to U.S. Memory Champion in one year. While reporting on the competition, Foer becomes intrigued. How are people able to memorize seven decks of cards, pages of numbers or poems in mere minutes? This was especially fascinating considering the contestants were regular people, not especially brilliant. Foer found a mentor and decided to try. A year later, by practicing everyday, he wins the competition by a small margin.

     Moonwalking with Einstein is this tale, but it also goes through explanations of the importance of memory and some of the major techniques used in the competitive memory world.

         In our modern world, information is becoming more and more externalized. We can look things up on our laptops, our iPods or our phones. While this availability is certainly helpful and useful, it comes with a cost, the cost of memory. Our ability to externalize information has made us not want to or bother to know information in the same way that people used to because we can always just look it up later. A couple problems evolve because of this attitude. Firstly, we remember less. Common examples prove this. Before I had a cell phone, I remembered a ton of my friend's phone numbers, now who knows anyones unless they had to for some specific reason? These types of "loses of memory" while not normally so bad, can cause issues in everyday life. This can apply to even writing things down. Because we do that we tend to not spend the time to really know what we wrote down. Giving ourselves the security blanket of being able to look at it later can at times hinder our ability to actually gather information. A larger problem that comes with externalizing information is in the form of becoming an expert in what we are trying to learn. In order to push forward and really understand a topic you need to know basic facts so that you can analyze and look farther into a situation. Always being able to look at the facts themselves stops this from ever occurring. Chess grandmasters need to know an immense amount of situations by heart for them to try and see which situation applies in the given game. Being able to look it up in a book does not allow this to happen. This is an extreme case but is still relates to everyday life. 

             After he makes the argument for working on and the importance of memory, Foer goes on to explain his journey too becoming a memory champion, including a few of the major techniques. The main concept that is used in memory training is called the memory palace. Instead of trying to memorize information which is harder, memory training tries to translate information into pictures and places. The main example that Foer gives for this is the difference between Baker and baker. It is hard to remember the name for Mr. Baker, but it is much easier to remember if you imagine him in a big white bakers hat. This picture is exceedingly more powerful than the word baker. Now if you want to memorize a list or a lot of information, one picture is not good enough. For many pictures, you create a memory palace. You use a place you know really well, and walk through it with the pictures placed in different places in your palace. To then remember the list later, all you have to do is look back in your mind at the place and the images will come back. Since reading the book, I have used this trick many times, making it easy to remember without writing down a list that I can easily lose. But what makes this work? Certainly, the images and places are more exciting than the list that you started with, but that can't be the only reason, i think it's more basic than that.  Many times we see or hear information, but we don't engage it, we don't really pay attention to what we are hearing. The memory palace makes us put effort into the words we are trying to remember. Really thinking about and absorbing the information allows it to not just be forgotten. 

             Because it was the event that Foer broke the world record in, Foer goes on to explain who he learned to memorize a deck of cards. Here you have to memorize a list of 52 things that are very similar to each other in a  a short period of time. I have tried to take on this endeavor and hope to soon be able to be able to see a new deck and be able to recite it a couple minutes later. These type of exercises allow a person to be able to use their memory as a tool in a way that they couldn't before. The story Foer writes is compelling and important for anyone interested in memory, which probably is everyone. It is both a theoretical and a practical book, made for the uninitiated, which is most of us. He explains alot of his experience in the TED talk seen here.

              As the high holidays come up there may not be a better time to think about memory. What exactly happened this past year.  Perhaps if we were able to pay more and more attention in our lives, not only will we remember our lives better, but we will also be able to remember what we should be doing at all times. 

The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki

In The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowieki, explains how crowds can be smarter than the best of people, given certain circumstances. Surowieki discusses three types of problems Cognition problems, those with certain answers, cooperation problems and coordination problems. I found how he shows that crowds can be excellent at cognition problems to be the most illuminating. Perhaps this is because it is the type of problem that he is able to give many examples of it working, and show that it works in a wide variety of questions makes his theory work so well. It is also able to be tested, as I did this summer  a couple of times. For cognition problems, Surowieki explains that given three prerequisites crowds will be remarkably smart. If they are discreet, meaning the people being asked do not effect each other, diverse, meaning they will not all have the same opinions, and that you have a way to aggregate the information you get from the crowd. Even if the people being asked have very incomplete information about the problem, as an average  of the disparate people the crowd can be remarkably exact.  A very simple example that Surowieki talks about is tracking guesses at a county fair of the weight of a bull. While no person got all that close to the actual weight of the bull, the aggregate average of all the guesses were within one pound of the bulls actual weight. This theory sounded so interesting so I decided to try it myself. I asked ten people how many spoons were in a bag. I added up their answers, took an average and then counted the spoons in the bag. The average added up to 277 and there were 279 spoons in the bag. No singular person was anwhere near that number and as Surowieki predicted the crowd was smarter than any of the parts of the group. It is as a group when individuals are strong.

         The implications for how we should be making decisions, and running government, is substantial. Singular people or small groups of people cannot approach the genius of the general population. Except for democracy in Greece, where every one could come and vote, we usually assume we should have a couple people making discussions. We can choose those people, but we choose to trust their judgement. Instead, those that are making decisions, rather than making them on their own, they should be aggregating what the public thinks and acting accordingly. 

      Recently, I have be watching a lot of The West Wing. In one episode (Inauguration 2), President Bartlett says: "There's a promise that I ask everyone who works here to make: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Do you know why? To which Will Bailey replies: "Because it's the only thing that ever has.  While this may be true that generally it has been special individuals, the public has a power that the individuals can not have. The book makes a powerful statement about the power of the people, something democracy has helped use, but perhaps not enough. 

           I would definitely suggest this book as great insight into the wisdom of crowds. There is a lot from the book that I was not able to discuss here, so it is well worth it to read through the book. 

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

           In Guns, Germs, and Steel,  Dr. Diamond sets out to try and answer perhaps one of the most important questions a historian can ask. How did the world end up the way it is now? How is it that some nations are strong and have become civilizations, while others are still functioning the same way they have for thousands of years? I'm going to spoil the theory right now so I will say now that the book was very insightful, although a bit dry at times. I would definitely recommend it. If it is easier, there is a three part documentary (each part an hour) on youtube, part one here, part two here, and three here. The third part is largely repetitive from the other two, so one could easily stop after two hours.

           Diamond essentially tries to answer the question based on geography. The way civilization grows is that things are produced more easily and with less people. This allows some people to work on things beyond what has been done before. This happened most in Western Europe, specifically because  of the types of grains and cattle that inhabited the land. Wheat and barley, the grains that predominated Western Europe are crops that are easily made into edible food, and therefore need less people. This was furthered by having the correct types of cattle that could plow the land, making the bread making process even more efficient. Because of this, many people were able to go on, and do other work, like creating metal tools, which furthered the efficiency of the farming, and of course weapons. This had two important factors. As more and more steel was being produced, more and more people were able to work on other things, making everything more and more effective. Without this initial step of having some people free to find ways of making food and shelter more efficiently made, society as we know it would not exist. Also, weapons enabled (and ennobled) Europeans to conquer much of the world. They could easily go into more undeveloped countries that did not have the resources they had and conquer them easily. Another thing that helped them conquer other nations was germs.  Because of the close proximity to livestock, Europeans had lived through many plagues due to germs. Naturally, the people that survived the plagues were those that were more resistent to the germs. Eventually, Europeans became immune to many of the diseases. When the came to Africa and the New World, the natives were not so immune. Diamond argues that because of their ability to produce steel and guns, combined with the germs they carried, Europeans were able to create civilization well past what others were able to accomplish.

           While this theory can certainly not withstand all criticism, which can be found here, it does give an insightful approach that explains much of human History. I found these ideas illuminating for a couple reasons. Firstly, it puts all people on an equal playing field. Some people happened to be luckier, but none are more creative or better than others. Had different resources been in different parts of the world, civilizations would have existed there instead. Secondly, the thesis seems to have a lot of backing based on the way women have been able to rise in the world in the last 50 or so years. Because of appliances like the washing machine and refrigerator, household duties have become much less laborious as they used to be (although they are still very demanding, and necessitate much work). Therefore, women have been able to do more in the world because making food is easier than before. This is in many ways analogous to our case of being able to more efficiently produce bread. Lastly, in some ways this lends credence to the Jewish people (although, certainly does not prove anything). We have almost always happen to have existed where the most can be done with the land, first in Mesopotamia, then in Europe. While I can't say that it is G-d provoked that that should have been so, it almost seems that way. Jews have been put in the situation where they can be part of civilization and illuminate the Bible's message to the world, not by converting it, but by being in the situation to show it how we can all live.

        Again, Guns, Germs, and Steel was a fantastic read, and really gave me new insight into the history of the entire world.

The Secret Life of Pronouns by James Pennebaker

Not particularly a linguist myself, I was surprised how much enjoyment I got out of this book. In some ways, my perspective on the world changed. Pronouns make up a large part of our sentences, yet we rarely pay attention to what they are saying. In his vast research, Pennebaker does. From findings about deep seeded depression, to figuring out if people are lying, Pennebaker delves into the hidden meaning of the pronouns we use. One instance, which I was actually able to test out myself, is how pronoun usage can gauge a person's self esteem. Ill explain the theory within the framework of the Obama campaign. Apparently, many advocates on the right noticed that Obama was using a lot of I words, or first person pronouns. Wanting to put Obama in a bad light, they argued that by using so many I words, Obama was showing how he was only focused on himself and arrogent. Pennebaker decided to test this theory out. Interestingly, he found that Obama was in fact using less I words than any president in recent memory. Instead, Obama was using a lot of we pronouns. Ironically, Pennebaker came to the same conclusion as those on the right did, but for the opposite reason. Using a lot of I words denotes low self esteem because it shows a need to put yourself and your accomplishments out there, rather than letting them talk for themselves. Conversely, we pronouns shows that one does not feel this and is confident with themselves. So in fact, this overconfidence exists in Obama (whether that is good or bad is up to you) but is shown through the we pronouns he is using, not the I ones. You can look through your old emails to both professors and friends and see if you saw what I did. When talking to a superior, I frequently used, subconsciously, a ton of I words, as I must have wanted to upgrade myself. The opposite happened when I spoke to those under me. Now conscious of this fact, it made it very difficult to write emails, as I was focusing on every word (thank G-d it's become easier now). While reading this, you may have noticed I have been using a lot of I words myself. That is actually due to something else, which I will get to later. There were other things that Pennebaker looked at that correlate with mental health and self esteem. More willingness to use larger words and sentences also work with this model. According to this, it should make sense for us all to use more we pronouns,  but there is a concern about honesty. In the Kerry campaign, Kerry started using a lot of I pronouns. His advisors thought that he should be using more we words, so Kerry shifted completely, using we words almost exclusively. What this shows, however, is a level of dishonesty. And perhaps, this is one of the reasons Kerry lost the election. When people say "we are going to do this" but really they mean "you are" or "I am" it conveys a sense of deceit. In fact, this was one fo the ways Pennebaker was able to test lying. So, at the begining of this post, you see me using a lot of I words. That is not because I am depressed, but because I read this book (perhaps you did too) and I am explaining what I thought, not what we thought. Here using those pronouns should show I am telling the truth (unless I know this, in which case I could be lying. Mind Blown). Another lie detector was a large use of emotion words. Rather than explaining what happened which was either good or bad, just saying it was positive without the information backing it up can also hint to lying. After taking the testimony from witness stands, the average person could tell whether the person was lying half the time. Pennebackers research (computer software) could tell 76% of the time. While this is not perfect, it is certainly better than what a person can tell. Perhaps most interestingly, the research was able to tell if a guy and a girl talking liked each other. This is a little more complicated, so I will leave it to you to read it in the book.

            All in All, I thoroughly enjoyed this book about pronouns. I find that my speaking, listening and writing has gotten deeper because of it. 

Game Theory A Short Introduction by Ken Binmore

              If you have never seen the "Very Short Introduction" series, the books are really fantastic. In a somewhat dense, but elegant manner, experts in different fields give introductions to many topics spanning across hundreds of topics. They are a really good way to go from knowing nothing on a topic to understanding the basics in 100-200 pages. This one was on game theory, but I may well read one on the Dead Sea Scrolls soon.

              Essentially, Game theory is the study of decision making. It tries to find out when people will decide to cooperate with one another, and when they won't. Most famously, this is seen in the Prisoner's dilemma, while there are many more that further the arguments and give different theories. In this example specifically, both of the prisoners will decide to rat out the other one because of their Nash equilibrium. A Nash equilibrium is when you have one option that no matter what the other person choses, you get the better result. In the prisoner's dilemma, it makes sense for each prisoner to separately mess the other one over. However, this is not their best option had they worked together and trusted each other. Essentially, a major challenge that game theory poses is how can we get people (and ourselves) to collaborate with one another (even if we don't have a collaboratorium) when the situation doesn't make us do so.

                I saw this happen first hand while I was a counselor for a day camp in a hotel for Passover. The counselors as a group were talking about whether it would make sense for the twelve or so of us to split the tips that we receive (that is how we were getting paid) or should we only get what the parents of the kids in our group give us. Mostly because I was reading this book at the time, game theory was all i could see. There are two types of utility that we could get as a group. Obviously, we each wanted more money, and many felt that they would do a great job, but there was also a value of wanting it to be fair. Like in the dilemma, there was an option that would have given the most utility. If everyone works hard and we split it then it is both fair and maximal money. However, as the dilemma teaches us every single other counselor decided to try and get the most tips, and of course some people ended up not getting a comprable share. While this wasn't exactly the same situation, it got me thinking about how we can fix this problem.

             I saw a similar example in a british game show called Golden Balls that I think can give us some insight. While the show is somewhat different because there is no Nash equilibrium, this still happens. The first possible solution is to change the rules of the game as is done here. In this situation he changes the way the game is played so it makes sense for the other guy to help. While this does lead to a positive result, I wouldn't necessarily say it makes the people virtuous. This also fails to solve the larger issue, instead it focuses on one example at a time. Therefore, in my estimation the way to solve it is this. Here, no tricks are needed. They have worked hard together and trust one another, so they will help one another. In essence, this is the power of community. When we are fighting for common goals and realize the value in one another we can solve the prisoner's dilemma. Game theory talks about how this happens with kin, ina  avery similar manner. People's love for their kin will override these tendacies. The question is how do we get this feeling to go over to the entire community, country and world?   It happens in armies and workplaces, why can't it happen at large?

            For the past two summers (and this coming summer), I have been a counselor in Machal in Camp Stone. Part of the Machal program is a community building exercise, trying to take a group of 15 year olds and create a bonded community. I have seen it happen twice, and I hope that we can make it happen again. What makes me nervous though, is that it takes an extremely intense summer like Machal to inculcate this value. What I can hope is that the campers will come out of the summer and spread it to their communities.

                        Generic ending about the Beit Hamikdash being built if we can do this.

              I would definitely recommend this book to anyone interested in economics or the way people collaborate. It really gave me insight into game theory, and I feel that i have gained knowledge of a new subject from such a short book.

A Time to Betray by Reza Kahlili

             Reza Kahlili, a pseudonym to protect his identity, was a revolutionary guard in Iran that became a CIA agent. In a Time to Betray, Reza relates the story of how he became the man to betray his native country and what happened while he was an agent for the CIA. Forgetting for a minute what I learned from the book itself, it really was a thrilling read. The feelings Reza has from his memories of the events that shaped his life are consistently evident. The pain and loneliness that goes along with his journey is palpable. This leads the reader to not only know the poor situation the regular Iranian is currently in, but it also makes one empathize and feel for them.

            After going through some of his childhood and the ways the government was viewed throughout it, Reza decides to attend college in UCLA. It is there that he truly interacts with America. Never thinking as a Muslim extremist, Reza continues to realize the problems with the way Iran is being run. Still, when he goes back he is stationed as a computer technician in the Revolutionary Guards of Iran. At this point the Guards have taken over the country and in many ways have made it an army state. There is a haunting scene where he goes to the Prison with his friend so the friend can see his children who have been imprisoned for no reason. He describes in detail some of the torture that was inflicted on the innocent prisoners. Ill spare you it here, but it highlighted the atrocities that were going on. Eventually, on a trip to America to visit his aunt, Reza contacts the CIA and an in time becomes an agent informing them on whats going on in the revolutionary guards.

            What becomes fascinating is how he has to relate to his family. He is working at a job he does not believe in (still finding it meaningful, as he is really working for the CIA), and has to be a "good" soldier. His parents berate him for his job seeing the revolutionary guard, and therefore Reza,  as being the cause of the problem in the country. He is able to live in a world where his parents hate him for what his job is, his wife doesn't understand, and he needs to act in a fake manner while he is at the office. One can only imagine what Reza had to go through, lying to everyone at the same time, especially when he believes as they do. I found that inspiring, to see what a person can do when they believe what they are doing is the best for those surrounding them. If Reza can do that, surely we can all do a little more to help our communities.

            I also found it inspiring how Reza was able to rise up from the family and community he grew up in. While his parents certainly did not have this mindset, much of the world Reza grew up in had a disdain for those things that are not iranian or Muslim. Reza was able to rise up from this bigotry and understand that it was not the truth. Even more impressively, Reza was able to stay firm to his beliefs even when he was berated with extremist ideology at work and even had to conform to it for a large portion of the day. Still he was able to rise up and do what needed to be done. While his immediate family shares the same sentiment that Reza does, wanting nothing of the army and extremist state they are living in, tehy do nothing about it. It is impossible to fault them for this, however, it makes Reza's feats so much greater because of his ability to take thought and put it into real actions. It is completely different to believe in something than it is to live with the consequences of that belief in a real way. His ability to take his belief system and to risk his life for it is a strength I hope we can all strive for (although I hope none of us ever need to be put into such a situation).

        Overall, A Time to Betray was a great read. It was thrilling and informative about the situation in Iran. I can only hope that the situation gets better for all our sakes, especially for those Iranians that are being oppressed by such a rule.