Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Food for Thought: Our Complex Relationship with Animals and What We Choose to Eat

Would you eat your pet for dinner? I'm guessing most people would recoil at the thought. But why? This question is designed to challenge our assumptions about what we consider acceptable food.

Many people have pet rabbits, yet rabbit meat is commonly consumed around the world. The same goes for dogs and cats. While they're beloved companions in many cultures, they're also a source of food in others. So, what makes cows and pigs any different? They're often raised in close proximity to humans, providing milk, companionship, and even emotional support. Yet, we slaughter and consume them without a second thought.

Perhaps it's the emotional connection we have with certain animals that makes the difference. Or maybe it's simply cultural conditioning. Whatever the reason, our relationship with animals is complex and often contradictory.

It's easy to buy meat neatly packaged at the grocery store, detached from the reality of the animal it came from. But how many of us would be comfortable killing and butchering an animal ourselves? I suspect many meat-eaters would lose their appetite if confronted with this reality.

Next time you find yourself in a discussion with vegetarians or people from cultures where eating dogs, cats, or even horses is commonplace, try to approach the conversation with an open mind. Our food choices are often deeply ingrained and culturally influenced. What seems "normal" to us might be considered abhorrent to others, and vice versa.

The point isn't to judge or condemn anyone's dietary choices, but to encourage reflection and understanding. By challenging our assumptions and considering different perspectives, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the complexities of our relationship with animals and the food we consume.


Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Back to Blogging (and Why I'm Blaming Xfinity for My Hiatus)

Hello there! It's been over a year since my last post. Shame on me, I know. I got sidetracked, but I'm back and ready to resume my blogging journey.

Symbolically, I'm blaming my absence on Xfinity. (Feel free to skip this next paragraph if you're not interested in the technical details.)

A year ago, I switched from Verizon FIOS to Xfinity, lured by promises of faster internet speeds, no DVR fees, premium channels, and a lower price. Unfortunately, the reality didn't match the hype. The internet speed was far below what was advertised, with frequent fluctuations and even complete blackouts. The Wi-Fi coverage was limited, the DVR interface was clunky, and once the promotional period ended, the price skyrocketed.

So, I'm back with FIOS, and everything is running smoothly again. The Wi-Fi is strong, the DVR fees are reasonable, the internet speed is consistent, and there are no more frustrating fluctuations. Fiber optic cables rule!

But enough about my internet woes. I'm eager to continue blogging and improve my writing skills. I'm always open to feedback and suggestions, so please feel free to leave comments. Let's get this blog rolling again!




Labels: , ,

Monday, October 22, 2012

The Android Orchestra: Can Robots Make Music, and Would We Call it Art?

  

Imagine attending a classical symphony concert where the musicians are not human, but advanced androids. Picture them on stage, dressed in formal attire, their faces replaced with screens, their movements precise and flawless as they perform a masterpiece. Would you consider this art, or simply a high-tech reproduction?

This question touches upon a broader debate: Is music performed from a written score truly art, or just a faithful rendition of the composer's intentions? From an amateur's perspective, one might argue that an orchestra's quality lies in the technical proficiency of its musicians, their synchronization, and their adherence to the notes. Individual expression is minimized, and the resulting sound is an average of all the instruments. The conductor acts as a pacemaker, ensuring everyone stays in sync.

However, conversations with knowledgeable musicians have revealed that there's more to it than just technical precision. The best orchestras and conductors bring a certain artistry to their performances, subtly shaping the music and conveying emotions beyond the notes themselves. Even the conductor's physical gestures contribute to the overall experience.

So, what's the appeal of attending a live concert? You already know the music, likely having heard recordings beforehand. You also know there will be imperfections, deviations from the score, and potential distractions. The comfort of your seat, the acoustics of the hall, and even the coughing of fellow attendees can all affect your experience.


Recently, I came across a blog about audiophile perspectives on music, which further broadened my understanding. (Read Eduard's blog)

It seems there are two distinct ways to appreciate music. One is the live concert experience, a multi-sensory package encompassing the social atmosphere, the visual spectacle, and the performance itself. The other is the intimate enjoyment of a recording, free from distractions, in the comfort of your own home. Both center around music, but offer vastly different experiences.

This brings us back to the question of art. Definitions vary, but most emphasize creative skill and the communication of emotion. Art stimulates thoughts, emotions, beliefs, and ideas through the senses.

Would an android orchestra qualify as art? Based on these definitions, I believe it could. The act of programming the androids to perform with expression and nuance would involve creative skill. And if their performance evokes emotions in the audience, then communication is achieved.

Ultimately, the question of whether we consider it art is subjective. But the possibility of androids creating and performing music raises fascinating questions about the nature of art, the role of technology, and the future of human expression.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, October 18, 2012

The Allure of the West: Exploring the Cultural Divide and the Enduring Appeal of Individualism

 The story of Osel Hita Torres, a Spanish boy raised as a reincarnated lama in a South Indian monastery, caught my attention recently. At 18, he decided to leave the monastic life and return to Madrid to study film. It seems that years of isolation, spirituality, and even worship couldn't outweigh the pull of the Western lifestyle. (dalai-lama-osel-hita-torres). 

This fascination with the "West" is something I've observed in my travels and conversations with people from all over the world. What exactly is it about Western culture that holds such allure?

Wikipedia offers various definitions, but they all revolve around the concepts of "Western culture" and "European civilization." The core values often cited include social norms, ethical values, and rationalism rooted in ancient Greek and Roman philosophies. The development of rational, logical systems for understanding and describing the world laid the foundation for philosophy and science, which together form the bedrock of Western societies.

I see these principles as a kind of "Rosetta Stone" for Western culture. Removing or suppressing any one of them could weaken or even reverse the direction of cultural development. They contribute to an asymptotic ideal of freedom—absolute freedom being unattainable, much like an asymptotic curve never quite reaching its axis.

In contrast, Eastern cultures often emphasize social harmony and collectivism over individualism. This makes sense when considering population dynamics. Larger societies, often arising in resource-rich environments, have a greater chance of surviving external challenges due to their larger pool of potential adapters. However, maintaining such societies requires a delicate balance, with the demands of sustaining a large population often pushing against the limits of resources. This necessitates a more selfless mindset, where individuals prioritize the collective good and accept limitations (egalitarianism). In practice, such societies tend towards stricter social control and less individual freedom.

Smaller societies, on the other hand, often develop in harsher environments with limited resources. They rely on the strength and ingenuity of each individual, fostering a culture of individualism and self-reliance. Think of the classic "pioneer" archetype, trusting no one, always ready to defend themselves.

Interestingly, societies built on individualism tend to be more expansive, aggressive, and even "greedy," even though larger, collectivist societies might have a greater need to expand due to population density and resource constraints.

The "socialist experiment" in the former Eastern Bloc, where people with Western cultural heritage were forced to live under collectivist systems, ultimately proved unsustainable. The desire for individual expression, the urge to possess what others had, and the aversion to conformity led to the eventual collapse of these regimes.

This cultural divide also has interesting implications for understanding innovation, a topic I'll explore in a future post.


Labels: , ,

Monday, September 17, 2012

Social networks - psychology behind blogging practice.

I am sitting on my folding chair on porch in my backyard, sipping coffee and having my laptop in my lap. Wonderful Sunday afternoon, almost autumn. Waiting for idea what to write about and hesitant whether to write at all. If you read one of my first posts - about write or not write the blog - you remember, I had this dilemma already. I speculated about why people write blogs and why it is good to write one. To me it was about the exercise. Well as it seems I didn't do many exercises, but...  there is always but. I did suffer with lack a feedback. As usually, authors want to see that someone did look at the the work and they anticipate reaction. Of course positive reaction is appreciated, but critique can help even more. Here I want to touch base with social networks. Frequently I read someones blog - opinion on something. Well, everyone is entitled to have an opinion. And if the opinion is expressed on public network with option to write comment, then anyone is entitled to write an comment on presented opinion. This is understood well. But the way how to present opinion and how to comment seems to be even more important than actual opinion. During reading many blog - opinions I already anticipate chain-reaction of comments. And yes they are there but after reading few I stop reading - vulgarisms, disrespectful comments,  strong counter -opinions (of the type - I know it better, you stupid and my opinion is louder and must be truth) - and many thanks to few with constructive opinion (there of course are still such a opinions. But as it seems in such loud environment I frequently inhibit my urge to write comment, because as it seems I am already afraid that I can't handle this opinion war. Then I realize - there is no constructiveness if I don't write, but I am still afraid to do so. So the same way I started to judge my most commonly used social networks - Linked In and Face book. For the second one I am going to make few comments - as it seems, many of us are just voyeurs, we like to watch, more private more dumpy is better and for the same reason we don't want to post, because - well - there are voyeurs that want to observe us you "dummy"... So the silence is the result. Why do we care then to have so many friends in friends list? First comes to mind is: more channels = more watching. Secondly many of us are  exhibitionists perhaps and we like to be watched??? Then maybe this is an answer - balance - like to watch and liked to be watched... Frequently I am thinking when I see people just trying to make an appearance that we mostly don't know how and what but we want people to know about us - we just press like button somewhere, thinking others will see at least what we like. Here I again see the problem with expression - we are afraid to express ourselves, because - what if the comments are not in favor of our expression? And here it is deep in us rooted - need for approval and worry of disapproval. So here I am with all my inhibitions - I will post some pictures - something that I like and maybe this wouldn't cause negative response. Then I look and voila - someone pushed like.... great - I am happy..... So little effort to make me happy...?...
And what about Linked in? It is professional network tool. What it is good for- maintaining contacts up to date, seeking people of certain professional background, presenting ourselves and showing our best, because this is what we anticipate of our contacts. Well this is at least what comes to my mind first thinking about Linked in. Of course human resources people (HR) love the "tool" for making their work easier when millions of people voluntarily offer information that otherwise they would need to gather some other way - more costly, more time consuming = more work. And then there is this self-promotion aspect. Well I can just post some general data and update it when I have some change, or - I can publish/update on daily or weekly base some information - which after each update shows my name in my entire linked to me network (this is analogue of FB - LIKE button). Then you can express your opinion, your critique - but wait - this is professional network - it is serious. They (superiors/bosses and potential bosses) can see you, what you think, what you dislike. They can see that you actually can express opinion and - is this always good? What if someone criticizes you in comments and everyone who matters can see it??? Well here is the problem of Linked- in and us and - Linked in being "social network". It is a tool so far to exchange CV data. It is big database. There are groups where actually social network idea can work, but being linked to our (not anonymous)  profile it will (or can) show our peers what we think...

P.S.: ups.... I guess you will be curious next time you see my FB pictures addition - or link to blog posting or my profile update on Linked in......


Labels: , ,

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Career move.

Have you ever felt that nagging feeling that it might be time for a career change? That's exactly where I've been lately. It all started a few months ago when I began to question if my current role was still the right fit.

This feeling was amplified recently when I received an email from Harvard Business Review with the subject line: "Are you ready for your next career move?" Talk about timing! It's like the universe is sending me a message.

To be honest, I haven't been actively searching for a new job until now. I've been enjoying a great work-life balance and even just returned from a fantastic vacation in Slovakia feeling refreshed and energized. But with this renewed energy, I've also gained a fresh perspective on my current position and the possibilities that lie ahead.

Change is exciting! I've always embraced new challenges, and the thought of leveraging my PhD and MBA in a new environment truly motivates me.

So, I dipped my toes into the job market, updated my resume (which received rave reviews from friends in HR!), and sent out a few targeted applications. While some career websites suggest sending out a massive number of applications to beat the statistics, I prefer a more focused approach.

However, despite my qualifications, experience, and positive attitude, I haven't received any offers yet. It's a bit discouraging, but I'm not giving up.

I'm confident in my skills and believe I have a lot to offer. I'm a communicative and open person, knowledgeable in various fields, and always eager to learn. I'm patient and passionate, and I'm looking for an opportunity where I can truly make a difference and feel like I'm doing what I was meant to do.

This job search journey has been an interesting experience so far. It's made me reflect on my career goals, my strengths, and what I truly want in a job. I'm still optimistic and excited about the possibilities that await.

If you have any advice, insights, or even job leads, I'd love to hear from you! Perhaps there's a mentor or a perfect opportunity out there just waiting to be discovered.

Labels: , ,

Friday, April 13, 2012

Friday 13th, 2012.... The Costco Run and the Great Grocery Debate: Fresh vs. Frozen, Waste vs. Efficiency

My recent trip to Costco got me thinking about something I often ponder: the best way to approach grocery shopping. It's hard not to consider stocking up a bit, especially with thoughts of uncertain times. But beyond that, I genuinely believe that a big bi-weekly shopping trip is more economical than daily store runs. Buying in bulk saves money, reduces gas consumption, and, perhaps most importantly, saves time.

Then there's the question of freshness. Unless you're a regular at the farmers market (and let's be honest, how many of us are?), I'm not convinced that the produce at the local supermarket is significantly fresher than what you can find at a warehouse club like Costco.

What really bothers me about supermarkets is the sheer volume of food waste. So much produce makes it to the shelves only to end up in the trash. It's truly disheartening to think of all those fruits and vegetables going to waste, and I often wonder where it all ends up.

This has led me to consider frozen produce as a viable alternative. While freezing requires energy, the food is ultimately used rather than wasted. Fresh produce, on the other hand, also consumes energy for storage and often ends up as waste. Plus, supermarkets often rely on chemicals to extend the shelf life of their produce, which is another concern.

Perhaps the ideal solution is a combination of frozen (for convenience and minimizing waste) and locally sourced (for freshness and supporting local farmers). What are your thoughts on this? How do you approach your grocery shopping? I'd love to hear your perspectives in the comments.

Labels: