Should Beef Production Be Outlawed?

Disclaimer: Let me start by stating that I don't believe that beef production should be outlawed. I am a devout carnivore. However I was assigned this essay as an exercise in depending points of view with which I disagree.

In today's America, beef is very popular. It is widely available and cheap. But there are several negatives associated with the raising and slaughter of cattle for human consumption. This raises the question of whether beef production should remain legal.

An obvious reason to outlaw beef production is the fact of its cruelty. Many people would say that the act of raising cattle just to slaughter for sustenance is cruel in and of itself. And what is the quality of life for factory-farmed cattle? According to the ASPCA, it's quite poor: "They are branded, castrated and may have their horns removed without painkillers. Sometime between the ages of six months and one year, most beef cattle are sent to live their last few months in crowded feedlots with hundreds or thousands of others. Without pasture and often without shelter, the cattle must stand in mud, ice, and their own waste.(ref)" Is the moral cost justified?

Meat production negatively affects the environment in many ways. For example, estimates are that up to 92% of the world's fresh water supply is used for farming, and a third of that is animal related. Production of meat is much more water-intensive than production of fruits and vegetables. In addition, a third of the world's grain is used for feeding animals. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), “with grazing land and cropland dedicated to the production of feed representing almost 80% of all agricultural land. Feed crops are grown in one-third of total cropland, while the total land area occupied by pasture is equivalent to 26% of the ice-free terrestrial surface.” Also, according to the FAO, pollution from livestock farming has serious implications for water quality. Estimates vary, but a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to livestock farming and meat production (ref). Beef in particular is hard on the environment. Compared to other animals, cattle are inefficient at converting their food to our food. As a result, beef has a bigger environmental footprint than the equivalent meat from other livestock (ref).

It is widely thought that consumption of red meat -- especially beef -- is bad for the heart, and is suspected of being carcinogenic (ref).

There have long been plant-based meat substitutes, and they have been improving in quality and availability. Some high-profile fast food restaurants have been experimenting with including them as menu options. Recently there have been new lab produced substitutes created by cultivating animal cells (ref). With the introduction and improvements in beef substitutes, there is less and less reason to produce and consume meat.

With so many problems associated with beef production and recent advancements in beef substitutes and artificially grown beef, the continued use of cattle for human consumption is not justified.

Shoul Drugs be Legalized?

Drugs are as old as time -- or at least as old as people. People have been fermenting and consuming alcohol for thousands of years. People have been growing and smoking tobacco for thousands of years. Ands people have been growing and brewing coca leaves for thousands of years. What do these things have in common? They are all mind-altering substances -- "drugs" as they are known today.

Consumption of these drugs carries with it many risks, starting with addiction. In addition, the use of many drugs carries with it risks to physical and mental health. Cocaine can cause strokes(ref), sugar can lead to diabetes(ref) and ecstasy can damage the brain's ability to regulate serotonin, and research with primates and rodents suggests that this damage can be long-lasting (ref). In addition, when people are on mind-altering substances, particularly hallucinogens, they may injure themselves due to the mind-altered state. For example, there's the sad case of Kaylee Muthart who gouged out her own eyes while under the influence of meth (ref).

So it's undeniable that people can be harmed by their drug use, and that is an obvious rationale for restrictions. But it raises the question: what is the proper role of government? In the United States, the proper role of government is to protect people from others -- not to protect people from themselves. Our constitutional rights were framed as protections of individuals' freedom from the government; the Bill of Rights is about what the government cannot do to us(ref).

Despite the ideals that the country was founded on, in 1920 the US ratified the 18th Amendment making the sale and purchase of "intoxicating liquors" illegal. Organized criminals saw a huge business opportunity. They knew that people would still want alcohol, even if it's illegal, and they would pay for it.(ref)  Over the 13 years of prohibition* many lives were lost in the wars between mobsters. In addition some alcohol was contaminated by other substances -- usually to cut costs. Government regulation and oversight would have likely prevented a lot of the contamination.

We see similar problems today with other addictive drugs. The aforementioned Kaylee Muthart only started using meth after she smoked marijuana that was tainted with meth. If she had been able to get marijuana legally in a market with some degree of government oversight, she would likely still have her eyes(ref). One of the failures of alcohol-prohibition was that, with production forced underground, there were increased instances of dangerous contamination (ref).

Other advantages of legalization include tax revenue and the savings resulting from reduced need for enforcement.

Not all drugs are equally harmful to their users or, more importantly, society. For example, violence is one of the common side effects of PCP use. By contrast LSD-users are less likely to harm others (ref) and actually has potential medical benefits (ref). There's no reason that questions of legalization require all-or-nothing answers. This is reflected in the situation today. Sugar and caffeine are legal. Alcohol is legal for those above age 21, and cocaine and LSD are illegal. Marijuana occupies a space inbetween; several states have legalized the drug and more are likely to follow, but it remains illegal on a federal level. One of the most common arguments in favor of legalization is that it does not generally cause harm to those who don't use it. Many drugs are generally illegal, but can be used for medical purposes. Simply put, it's possible to have different rules for different drugs.

In conclusion, not all drugs should be legalized. Those that have a high likelihood of causing users to harm others should remain illegal or restricted. But those that just cause harm to the users, whether physical or mental, no matter how little or how much, should be fully legalized.

*Prohibition was ended in 1933 with the 21st Amendment.

Violent Games and Violent Acts: No Causal Link

Video games are more popular than ever – especially violent video games. Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty and Battlefield are just three examples. But with the rise in their popularity, video games have received more than their share of criticism. They have been blamed for a number of mass murders, including those in Columbine High School (ref) and the Sandy Hook Elementary School (ref), as well as Anders Breivik’s attacks in Norway (ref).

Blaming a new entertainment medium for violence is not new. The Grimm Brothers’ fairytales were extremely violent* and are, in some quarters, being blamed for domestic violence (ref). In 1928, Robert Williams tried to blame the film, London After Midnight, for his committing murder (ref). In the 1950s the US Senate held hearings to determine if comic books caused violence (ref). For video games, it started with Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop in 1983 (ref).

There’s an obvious, intuitive argument to be made that the depictions and acts of violence desensitize youth and make them more prone to reenacting what they have witnessed. But the evidence is inconsistent. (ref).

Many critics cite the fact that a lot of school shooters are gamers and play violent video games (ref). But that ignores the basic fact that video games are commonplace. You may as well blame violence on ice cream consumption. As of 2013, video game sales were increasing annually, and violent crime was declining (ref). According to some sociologists, it is social isolation – not video games – that leads to violence (ref).

That last point would indicate that videogames may reduce violence. We are in an age where children’s opportunities for social play has declined (ref). But with the advent of multi-player online games such as Call of Duty and Overwatch, video games provide a social outlet (ref). And there is a body of research indicating that video game play provides social as well as cognitive, creative, motivational and emotional benefits. (ref)

There is no way to definitively rule out a link between playing violent video games and committing violent acts. But the evidence doesn't point to such a link (ref). In the next decades, the media will shift their attention to some new form of entertainment.

---

*For one example, in the original Cinderella, the stepsisters hacked off pieces of their own feet in order to fit their feet into the glass slipper.

Was the Decision to Bomb Japan Justified?

In July of 1945 the United States was mired in war. Germany had surrendered, but Japan was still a dangerous threat. The military was developing plans to invade. But the invasion was expected to be the most costly operation in the history of the country’s military. Casualty estimates ranged from half a million to a million American troops. (ref) For comparison’s sake, the American Civil War, which spanned from 1861 to 1865 and was costliest war in US history, cost a total of over 600,000 soldiers between both sides.(ref) In addition to American troops, Many more Japanese soldiers and civilians would have been killed. President Truman had fought in World War I and had firsthand knowledge of the horrors of war.

In Japanese culture, honor was everything. People reacted to dishonor by disemboweling themselves.(ref) The air force had developed squadrons of pilots who each had the goal of suicidally flying their airplanes into enemy ships. (ref)Because of the sense of duty and honor that is part of Japanese culture, there was little hope that the inevitable defeat would force a surrender.

But there was an alternative. In July, the government had tested a revolutionary weapon. In New Mexico they had detonated the world’s first atomic bomb – with the explosive force of between 15 and 20 kilotons.(ref) It was hoped that using this new weapon would force the quick surrender that a conventional invasion wouldn’t. In deciding whether to use the atomic bomb, resident Truman had to weigh the human costs of such use against the costs of continuing to fight a conventional war.

The biggest consideration was minimizing deaths – and, most-specifically, American deaths. As noted above, a traditional invasion would have likely cost over half a million American lives as well as many Japanese. The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima killed an estimated 80,000 lives and the bombing of Nagasaki killed an estimated 45,000.(ref) Thus, the bombing actually saved lives in the final tally. What’s more, it saved American lives, which is a primary consideration for the American government.

The long-term effects of environmental impact of atomic weapons were not well understood. This is evidenced by the fact that the earliest tests of such weapons were carried out on American soil. It is widely accepted that American film icon, John Wayne, died of cancer brought about by radiation exposure experienced during the filming of The Conqueror in New Mexico near the sight of many early tests.(ref) To an extent, the military viewed atomic weapons simply as bigger bombs. This is evidenced by the fact that, post-World War II, the American military expected atomic weapons to be part of the normal process of warfare, and conducted exercises that involved soldiers crouching in trenches while a bomb was detonated and then charging toward the center of the blast. The death toll in Hiroshima was lower than the 100,000 killed in one night of conventional firebombing of Tokyo.(ref)

In today’s world, one of the major reasons that use of atomic weapons is generally considered off the table is the risk of a global conflagration that could destroy all of humanity. But that is a consequence of a global arsenal of nearly 15,000 bombs held by nine countries,(ref) some of which are thousands of times as powerful as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.(ref) At a time when the US was the only nation with such weapons, there was no risk of other countries responding in kind.

Given the considerations and the context, it seems that the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was a reasonable one.

 *

A Moral Dilemma for AI-Controlled Vehicles

Consider this scenario: A man is in a self-driving car. There is a truck in front of him, but the truck’s wheel breaks off. There are three options:

1. Swerve to the left and hit a school bus which is full of children, almost certainly injuring some of the occupants and possibly killing some of them;
2. Swerve to the right where there is a man on the side of the road standing right outside his car, in which case you would most likely kill him; or
3. Go forward, driving into the truck, most likely killing the occupant of the self-driving car.

Which do you choose? What should the car decide? Which should the programmers program the AI to do? It may seem like a purely academic exercise, but cars keep getting new self-driving features such as automatic brakes or self-parking, so we’re much closer to having self-driving cars on the consumer market than many would think. But these types of situations will become rarer and rarer as self-driving vehicles become more and more commonplace.  Additionally, as the AI learns and adapts to new situations through trial and error, accidents will be reduced. That’s not to say there will not be accidents with self-driving cars but it will be a lot rarer than with cars that are manually operated.

There are no good options. Of course, this will depend on applicable laws and legislation. However I am speculating on courses of action in the absence of such legal concerns. The car company has an obligation to keep its passengers safe. The best case for this specific scenario is option 1 -- hitting the school bus and most likely injuring the occupants of said bus but hopefully not killing any of them. The likelihood of not having any deaths is preferred. There are exceptions such as if the man on the right is terminally ill or on the FBI’s most-wanted list. However I don’t think that self-driving cars will be able to identify people until several years after self-driving cars are released on the market. Car companies will most likely hire actuaries to work with the programmers and assess the different levels of risk for different people.

This is just one of the dilemmas that will be faced by self-driving cars, but it illustrates that programmers and the cars themselves will have hard choices to make.

Screening a Lost Film

In a previous post I talked about the cinematic history class that I go to every week. Occasionally one of the students (or the teacher) hosts a screening that has more of a party atmosphere. For example, one of the guys in the class -- Joe -- will soon be hosting a movie night at his home where we will be watching Dario Argento's Opera. The teacher -- Keith -- occasionally hosts something similar. For example, he showed The Rolling Stones' Gimme Shelter.

But the one that I found the most interesting was when Keith hosted Ed Wood's The Young Marrieds. And it wasn't even that I liked the film. It was a rip-roaring embarrassment of a film.

A little bit of backstory...

Ed Wood was known as a director who made horror films that were scary for all the wrong reasons. Many people aren't aware, but the last film he made was a porno, The Young Marrieds. For years there was a softcore version available on DVD, but the hardcore version was lost. In 2004 the hardcore version was found in an abandoned porn theater in Vancouver by porn archaeologist, Demetrios Otis. That was released on DVD, but an uncut version was subsequently found -- I'm not clear on the difference, though I think it's supposed to be better quality. It has yet to be released. That print is owned by a friend of Keith's. The two of them arranged a screening, and invited our film class.

It was the right environment to enjoy such a horror of a film. I should point out that I've got a fascination with lost films and with lost footage from films.For example, the lost thirty minutes of circus performances in Tod Browning's 1932 film, Freaks. To be one of the few people to see the uncut version of Ed Wood's last movie was a memorable experience.

Our Unpopular Populist, Part 2

In my last post I talked about why I love Andrew Jackson. Now I will address some problems that I have with him, and some of the ways he is considered problematic. Even though I am fond of him, I want to make it clear that I am fully aware that he was not perfect.

One of the many things that people dislike him for is the fact that he owned slaves. And while that is problematic in today's world, it was not unusual for the rich elite from the South. Several of our early Presidents and founding fathers were slave owners. I'm not saying that it was good, but you have to judge them for the time.

Another thing people criticize him for is the Trail of Tears, which is popularly described as a genocidally-motivated campaign. Former Secretary of the Navy and Democratic Senator, Jim Webb, explained it better than I can when he wrote this for the Washington Post:

As president, Jackson ordered the removal of Indian tribes east of the Mississippi to lands west of the river. This approach, supported by a string of presidents, including Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, was a disaster, resulting in the Trail of Tears where thousands died. But was its motivation genocidal? Robert Remini, Jackson’s most prominent biographer, wrote that his intent was to end the increasingly bloody Indian Wars and to protect the Indians from certain annihilation at the hands of an ever-expanding frontier population. Indeed, it would be difficult to call someone genocidal when years before, after one bloody fight, he brought an orphaned Native American baby from the battlefield to his home in Tennessee and raised him as his son.

Now I'd like to talk about my biggest problem with him, which is that he expanded the Executive power. I don't feel like it was a problem for what he did, but it was a problem for later presidents. But I won't get into that here. Washington wanted to make sure that there were checks and balances. He knew that it was important to have safety measures put in place so one bad leader can't destroy everything.

The reason that I like Andrew Jackson so much as a character is his complexity. He did a lot of good. He did a lot of bad. But overall I just like him