Monday, September 24, 2012

Guns, Germs, and Steel


             After reading the book and doing some research, I found this argumentative article that Jared Diamond wrote to Mitt Romney, Romney Hasn’t Done His Homework. Romney latest controversial remark explains that the role of culture makes some countries rich and powerful while others are poor and fragile. Jared Diamond explained how Mitt Romney misrepresented his views and that “basically says the physical characteristics of the land account for the differences in the success of the people that live there. There is iron ore on the land and so forth.” On the other hand, Jared Diamond states, 

“That is so different from what my book actually says that I have to doubt whether Mr. Romney read it. My focus was mostly on biological features, like plant and animal species, and among physical characteristics, the ones I mentioned were continents’ sizes and shapes and relative isolation. I said nothing about iron ore, which is so widespread that its distribution has had little effect on the different successes of different peoples.” (Diamond, 2012).
            As Professor Diamond explains that there are many different factors that make a country wealthy and powerful. “That is not to deny culture’s significance. Some countries have political institutions and cultural practices — honest government, rule of law, opportunities to accumulate money — that reward hard work. Others don’t. (Diamond, 2012) For instance, North Korea and South Korea share the same culture, language, and religion. However, South Korea is rich, and North Korea is poor. In addition to East Germany and West Germany, also Hong Kong and the old Communist China, that shared the same culture, language and religion, despite how small Hong Kong was, it had wealth, while communist China was poor. As a result, Diamond explained that part of the answer has to do with human institutions. Some countries are wealthy because they encourage capitalism, free enterprise and trade. Also good institutions lack in corruption, the rule of law, control of inflation, protection of private property rights, and financial capital. However, “institutions and culture aren’t the whole answer, because some countries notorious for bad institutions (like Italy and Argentina) are rich, while some virtuous countries (like Tanzania and Bhutan) are poor.” (Diamond, 2012).

            The three biggest factors that Jared Diamond explains why some countries have accumulated great riches over time while other remained historically poor are geography, access to the sea, and history of agriculture. 

            “One such geographic factor is latitude, which has big effects on wealth and power today: tropical countries tend to be poorer than temperate-zone countries. Reasons include the debilitating effects of tropical diseases on life span and work, and the average lower productivity of agriculture and soils in the tropics than in the temperate zones.” (Diamond, 2012). There are more parasitic diseases in the tropical areas and this can inflict a huge trouble on economies tropical countries. At a certain time, we might find that much of the population is ill and unable to work efficiently.  However as Jared Diamond explained temperature climates with cold winters are helpful to human health, because they kill viruses and diseases. In addition, some countries are expanding significant investments in public health, as Diamond cited Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore. However, disease vectors, such as ticks and mosquitoes, are far more diverse in the tropical areas than in temperature areas. 

            “A second factor is access to the sea. Countries without a seacoast or big navigable rivers tend to be poor, because transport costs overland or by air are much higher than transport costs by sea.” (Diamond, 2012). As Jared Diamond wrote a letter to Daron Acemoglu the author of Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, “It costs roughly seven times more to ship a ton of cargo by land than by sea. That puts landlocked countries at an economic disadvantage, and helps explain why landlocked Bolivia and semi landlocked Paraguay are the poorest countries of South America.” 

            Third, the history of agriculture, as Diamond claimed, “13,000 years ago, all peoples everywhere were hunter-gatherers living in sparse populations without centralized government, armies, writing or metal tools. These four roots of power arose as consequences of the development of agriculture, which generated human population explosions and accumulations of food surpluses capable of feeding full-time leaders, soldiers, scribes and inventors.” At the time of Columbus, European cultures had an advantage over other cultures, because they previously had complex state governments and market economies. As Diamond suggested, “regions with long experiences with agricultural production or state-societies were wealthier than their counterparts.” 


            Now, let’s talk which plants and animals made people geographically lucky.  In Ch.7 Apples and Indians, Diamond explained that “perhaps almost any well-watered temperate or tropical area of the globe offers enough species of wild plants suitable for domestication.” (Diamond, 1997). Furthermore, Diamond disputed that around 3400 BC, productive agriculture was found in different parts of the ancient world, including the Fertile Crescent, China, Egypt, the Indus Valley, the Valley of Mexico, the Andes, and Polynesian Hawaii. In addition, “the most intensively studied and best understood part of the globe as regards the rise of agriculture,” was in the Fertile Crescent. The rise of food production was possible in the Fertile Crescent because of the Mediterranean climate that included rainy mild winters and hot dry summers. As a result, a large number of larger-seeded annuals, a high percentage of plants suitable for domestication, and a high number of prized large grass seeds. “Of the 200,000 wild plants species, only a few thousand are eaten by humans. Even of these several hundred crops, most provide minor supplements to our diet and would not by themselves have sufficed to support the rise of civilizations.” (Diamond, 1997).  This included wheat, rice, corn, sorghum, soybean, potato, and sugar cane, which is the world’s leading crop. 


       According to Diamond, “The Anna Karenina principle explains a feature of animal domestication that had heavy consequences in the human history.” (Diamond, 1997). In addition, large animals could be domesticated, were domesticated by 2500 BC. The animals that were domesticated were llama in South America, North Africa, and Asia. Europe had others like goats, pigs, sheep, cows, donkeys, horses, camels, water buffalo, reindeer and cattle. In addition to the llama/alpaca, is a New World domesticate and other New World domesticates include the guinea pig, turkey, dog and Muscovy duck. As a result, domesticated animals led to bigger productivity, and most of these domesticated animals were native to the temperate climates of the world, where we find the most powerful societies developed. 


            “Technology, in the form of weapons and transport, provides the direct means by which certain peoples have expanded their realms and conquered other peoples.” (Diamond, 1997). In the book, Jared Diamond explained why the Spanish had advanced steel swords while the Inca’s were still making tools. His argument is that Europe was geographically close to the Fertile Crescent, and they are the ones who inhered the 7,000 years of metal technology. I agree with Diamond, geography is a big factor why the Spaniards became more powerful with the development of technology. Spaniards had a diversified society and they dedicated their time and effort to produce the strongest, longest and sharpest swords possible. On the other hand, Incas were isolated. They viewed the Spaniards as Gods because they rode horses, had guns and swords, things that the Incas never saw before. If the Incas knew more about the style of fighting, they could have been victorious. We know Europeans were the first to acquire Guns, Germs, and Steel, for that reason they could conquer other lesser developed civilizations, and ultimately, conquer the world. 


            Other countries rejected the new innovation of inventions. For example, Japan, the samurai restricted the adoption of guns until Commodore Perry arrived in 1853. “Tasmanian continued to use stone tools superseded tens of thousands of years earlier in Europe… and Islamic societies in the Middle East are relatively conservative and not at the forefront of technology.” (Diamonds, 1997) However, the main factors leading to the differences in technological development between the Europeans and the New World inhabitants were: “level of food production, barriers to diffusion, and differences in human population.” 

Angelica Romero
                                                                                              
Sources:

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Can the American “abundance” problem also be a hunger or nutritional problem?



Today in America, malnutrition comes in different ways. As the website e-News states, “malnutrition comes in the form of "too much" rather than too little - too much saturated fat, too many hydrogenated fats, too much sodium, too much refined sugar, too many calories.” As a result, Americans suffer from much higher rates of cancer, diabetes, heart disease and obesity. 

            In the modern life, The American families are forgetting how to live and eat. The three factors that make America a malnutrition country are time, money and psychological emotions. 

Let’s go back forty years ago. It’s another evening in American household. The door opens around 5:20 p.m. “Hello honey! I’m home!” This is when dad comes in, really hungry and tired of a long work in the factory. Mom gives him a kiss and four happy children are waiting in the table to eat a delicious turkey mom made. 

From the Census Bureau in 2008, 61 percent of women with young children now work. Today’s working women and men are commuters. They travel enormous distances to work and don’t return until dark or they just don’t come home because they are working in another city.

Both parents are away from home for long hours, so now, who’s is doing those delicious meals in the kitchen? The answer is nobody. Now, fewer people have less time to shop and prepare the home style food. Because parents are not home until dark, they can’t spend time in the kitchen. So what does the family eat? A quick and easy fast food meal is the common solution. Therefore, the consequence of these quickly prepared meals is that families are spending less time together. The classic fast food, like hamburgers, French fries or chicken nuggets are mean to be eaten on the run and not enjoyed at the dinner table. When customers enter a McDonald's or Burger King, they do not want to wait long for their food. The time from when they get in line until they get their food has to be minimum. I know from my own personal experience that if I wait more than five minutes I am unhappy. For this reason, families no longer share the evening meal, and therefore the malnutrition generation knocks on the door.

 As the Palo Alto Medical Foundation website explains, “With the efficient service, low prices and casual atmosphere, fast food seems like the ideal "all-American" choice. In fact, over 25 percent of Americans consume fast food every day. Fast food does not have to be unhealthy, but most of the time it is; consumers often order foods with more fat, calories, sugar and sodium, and less nutrition and vitamins than is necessary.” While we can find some ways to a well-balanced nutrition lifestyle, the unhealthy option of fast food is more appealing and common in the United States. “Kids between the ages of 6 and 14 eat fast food 157,000,000 times every month.” (Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 2012)

Second, money is a big component that will lead to a nutritional problem in the United States. In the article 10 Things the Food Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know, states that, “The food industry and its nonstop marketing has been tabbed by many experts as a major player in the obesity epidemic.” (Voiland, 2012). The food industry uses the mercantile system and advertising, to increase their profit in junk food, and encourages consumers to eat more. Also, they worry more in the appearance of food than if it’s healthy or not. 

Furthermore, According to the Federal Trade Commission, “food makers spend some $1.6 billion annually to reach children through the traditional media as well the Internet, in store advertising, and sweepstakes. The bulk of these ads are for unhealthy products high in calories, sugar, fat and sodium.” In the article, Unhappy Meals, “a creature’s senses come to recognize foods as suitable by taste and smell and color, and our bodies learn what to do with these foods after they pass the test of the senses. Kids are used to color, taste and how the food looks. If a colorful candy they never taste it, they don’t mind.” (Michael Pollan, 2007). The problem here is that children are bombarded with commercials that attract their mind and body. According to the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, “the child sees about 5,500 food commercials a year (or about 15 per day) that advertise high-sugar breakfast cereals, fast food, soft drinks, candy, and  snacks.” On the other hand, fewer than one hundred TV ads children see for healthy foods, like vegetables and fruits. 

In addition, when we are talking about money, “more processing means more profits, but typically makes food less healthy.” (Voiland, 2012). Typically, big companies are looking to make high profits in processed food, but the fresh fruits and vegetables clearly aren’t. “The big bucks stem from turning government-subsidized commodity crops-mainly corn, wheat, and soybeans-into fast food, snack foods, and beverages. High-profits products derived from these commodity crops are generally high in calories and low in nutritional value.” The fact is that also processed food, junk food and fast food, most of the time is cheaper than buying a pound of avocados or apples. For this reason, people prefer to spend less money when it comes to food, and save other money to pay the bills or other more “important things.”  

Finally, psychological emotions like depression might lead to a nutritional problem in our life. A recent study of the Public Health Nutrition, found out that “people who eat fast food and commercial baked goods are 51 percent more likely to develop depression than those who eat little to none.” Food is a pleasure, but sometimes the pleasure goes beyond the taste, is more about the joy to feel comfortable and satisfied for just a few moments. The research found that “those people who were depressed were also more likely to be smokers and work more than 45 hours per week.” (Walters, 2012). Mary Hartley, a registered dietitian in New York City explains that “people who have poor-quality diets often have subclinical deficiencies of essential nutrients. The body needs nutrients to make neurotransmitters, and so, sure, nutrient deficiencies may have a role in some mental and behavioral disorders.”  (Hartley, 2009). The fact is that adults and children have not been taught good habits, and the virtue of moderation. The research showed that certain nutrients can help prevent depression. "Foods rich in the B-vitamins, folic acid, such as lentils, bean, spinach, oranges, asparagus, avocado, seeds, tomatoes, and fortified cereals, might help," Hartley says. "And foods high in vitamin D may help, too. Those include fatty fish, egg yolks, and milk. As well as the sun itself, the most important source of vitamin D."
 
The sad part is that because of bad healthy eating choices, more Americans instead of exercising prefer surgery as the fast way to a healthy lifestyle. Michael Pollan states, “Capitalism in itself marvelously adaptive, able to turn the problems it creates into lucrative business opportunities: diet pills, heart-bypass, operations, insulin pumps, bariatric surgery. But while fast food may be good business, for the health-care industry, surely the cost to society –estimated at more than $200 billion a year in diet-related health care costs – is unsustainable.”

At the end, this reminds me of The Paradox of Our Time in history, which explains that in the modern life; we are forgetting how to live and how to spend our time wisely. “We spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but less wellness. These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes.” (Bob Moorehead). At the end, “It is only when we change the way we think that we can change the way we live…for the better.”

            Angelica Romero

Sources: