Nonsense Poetry #3: Swells

For this series of posts, we challenged ourselves to write an obscure-sounding poem with no intended meaning in mind. Then we all took turns analyzing each other’s poetry, to see if we could extract some meaning after the fact. It turns out, writing a truly meaningless poem is harder than it sounds!
---------------------------------------------------------
Swells
By Nicholas Sokol

Through the mitral swell is lost
A whisper in the dimming sun
Rasping in the gaping frost
Whilst edging through the sly fecund

Yearning through the verdant gleam
Ferning as at last it bows
And slips the lip in burning sheen
And garish pelted mossy throws

Nick’s Post-hoc Analysis:
This poem paints a picture of the planet Earth, gasping a final plea to its human inhabitants, its heartbeat fading as its crust freezes over. We see the last remnants of healthy green struggling to stay alive before finally “slipping the lip” and giving way to a post-apocalyptic state in which oil burns on the surfaces of the oceans in a “burning sheen”, and the last humans wear garish furrs as they trample the last of the living flora.

Stephen’s Analysis:
The first half of the poem introduces a whisper, in some winterish scenario.  The mitral swell, I assume, is a heartbeat.  So the dimming sun is death, and the whisper represents the last breath.  But it also represents the last thoughts. On the verge of unconsciousness, or death, I've heard of a phenomenon where people are overwhelmed with happiness, or see something they love.  So the last breath leaves with the last thought, fading into the welcoming embrace of nature, giving rise to new life as it enters the ground.

Sarah’s Analysis:
To me, it seems like... It's describing a secret. I don't know.

Consecutive Sentence Challenge

This is a project from summer of 2015 in which we challenged ourselves to create a meaningful paragraph of some kind. The only constraint was that the paragraph had to consist of twenty sentences, each sentence containing one more word than the one before it, in consecutive fashion. It was really fun finding ways to use the imposed structure of this challenge to match the content of the paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------

Stephen:
(1)Love. (2)Why love? (3)Who needs love? (4)It’s a useless emotion. (5)Actually, it’s worse than useless. (6)Love brings pain to all parties. (7)We all must pass from this world. (8)Some of us must go before the others. (9)This leaves many in their misery and lost dreams. (10)They must forever live in the shadows of the past. (11)But surely we would not feel such pain without just cause. (12)Surely there could be no meaner trick played by fate or deity. (13)Men, women, and their children too have always felt the need for love. (14)And so they have decided on many explanations, convincing themselves that it is good. (15)They may well be correct in their many ponderings on this deep, and profound subject. (16)For what prevents a mother killing a sickly child if not the strong attraction she feels? (17)What keeps man and woman together in marriage, even when strong temptation comes upon them, but love? (18)What is the thing that keeps the very roots of the human race from pulling themselves out completely? (19)What great and powerful force drives away the evil and dark armies of hate, anger, selfishness, greed, and fear? (20)I seem to have come full circle in my approach to this strange emotion, for my answer now is Love!

Nick:
(1)Life. (2)Emergent forms. (3)Bottom-up design. (4)Layers of increasing complexity. (5)Yet none are truly simple. (6)Even ancient archaea hold complex secrets. (7)Bacteria, their younger brethren, even more so. (8)Single-celled organisms give rise to higher forms. (9)Each finding a unique niche in it’s own ecosystem. (10)Each species battling for it’s right to occupy that niche. (11)What happens when a niche becomes too full, or disappears altogether? (12)We see it happening in the wild by the thousands every day. (13)Ninety-nine percent of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. (14)We see ourselves standing alone, somehow separate from the threat of those dire odds. (15)We are man; sculpted from the dust of stars to become the pinnacle of evolution. (16)We are the most complex known form of life, and our niche shall never be filled. (17)We are that which fills the niches of the world, and none can stand in our way! (18)Yet how are we, having only just discovered our place, so quick to forget our ancient, humble origins? (19)For all our complexity, will now learn the lessons echoing to us from our brethren, the ninety-nine percent? (20)Let us remember, bacteria existed long before us, and will persist when the last of our kind is but dust.       

Sarah:
(1)"What? She didn't. (2)Are you serious? (3)I can't believe that. (5)She is literally, completely insane! (6)She wanted to buy your baby! (7)You can't continue working for this woman. (8)This is completely unprofessional behavior she is exhibiting. (9)No, no, I simply will  - can not accept this. (10I don't understand how you're being so calm about it. (11)Okay, first she slept with your husband, then with your gynecologist. (12)You can't tell me the woman isn't on your shit list, okay? (13)Well, that is just your opinion, of course, but  it is totally unacceptable. (14)I don't really care about the open relationship aspect, you know this about me. (15)I have never been okay with the whole concept of him sleeping around, you know? (16)I mean, I know you wanted to make him happy, but this is way too far. (17)But the thing is, even if you are okay with him sleeping around you have to quit. (18)Obviously, I hear you, you're going to have a hard time finding a new job in this economy. (19)But she's insane, think about it this way - if you stay there, your baby will always be at risk! (20)Okay, well at least think about what I said before you make any rash decisions, and take care of yourself."

Emma:
(1)"Tomatoes. (2)Don't forget. (3)Oh, and zucchini. (4)Are you listening, Kyle?! (5)You should get flour too. (6)I'd like some greens, maybe spinach? (7)How about a package of ground beef? (8)And Hamburgers would make an excellent Friday dinner! (9)However, that means you should get potato chips too. (10)And please get some kind of nonalcoholic beverage as well. (11)Are you going to be able to remember all this, Kyle? (12)Tomatoes, zucchini, flour, spinach, ground beef, potato chips, drinks....and some carrots. (13)Baby carrots if you can find a bag big enough for us all. (14)Perhaps we should stock up on refried beans, just in case we make burritos. (15)But if we make burritos, we'll need some cheese and sour cream....maybe some cilantro.  (16)And what if I were to try to make a batch of cookies for the party? (17)That means you'll need to pick up some chocolate chips, brown sugar, eggs, and a milk carton. (18)In case you decide to bring lunch to work instead of eating out, pick up some sandwich meat. (19)I don't remember what your mom thinks of granola, but I thought I'd make some for when she visits. (20)If you can remember everything I just said, which you should, then I expect you back with it pronto, Kyle!


Mythological Creature Challenge #3: Mermaids?

This the third in a series of posts wherein we challenged ourselves to write a piece that attempts to convince the reader of the existence of some mythological creature.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Case for Mermaids
By Nicholas Sokol



For thousands of years, countless civilizations have told stories of the half-fish half-human creatures we now call mermaids. While such reports have today been relegated to the pages of children's’ books, it remains a fact that mermaid sightings still do trickle in from time to time. Whether you believe that mermaids still exist, or that they are now extinct, or that they have always been an invention of the human mind, it is clear that the legacy of mermaids is deeply entrenched in human history.

Given the pervasive nature of mermaids in culture, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising to learn that humans share up to 85% of their DNA with fish. Maybe it's not so implausible that a creature bearing only a 50% resemblance to a fish could have existed, probably even sharing a common ancestor with us.

Many have called attention to what is perceived as an absence of mermaids from the the fossil record. However, experts estimate of the over 5 billion species that have ever existed, 99% are now extinct, leaving only a fraction of its footprint in the fossil record. This fact represents a massive blind spot in the archeological record which leaves plenty of room for mermaids to have existed. However, it has been noted that there are countless fossils that contain only the bottom half of a fish, and there are certainly a few examples of humanoid remains wherein the bottom half was never found. Some of these fossils may have even been found in close proximity to one another, leaving the door open for mer-interpretations. However, some researchers have questioned if these half-human fossils may instead be evidence for centaurs.

In addition to the compelling case provided by the fossil record, there are a few related statistical facts that add weight to the case for mermaids. Mermaids have historically been known to use their often attractive bodies to lure sailors to their deaths in thousands of shipwrecks that have taken place across the centuries. However, there are fewer shipwrecks per capita today than in any other time in the history of ships, noting a curve that closely mirrors the dropoff in mermaid sightings in recent centuries. While there may be other factors at play in the decrease in maritime accidents, decreasing mermaid activity is an often overlooked factor. It may also be that the mermaid sightings that still do happen are now less likely to lure sailors to their deaths, due to the prevalence of smartphones and easy access to porn for sailors.

In doing research for this story, we interviewed one of the world’s leading experts in mermaidology, ex-NOAA scientist Pat Richardson. When asked about the skepticism that is still prevalent despite his efforts to set the record straight he said, “people will just come up to you outright and tell you that there's no such thing as a mermaid, and they just have no evidence for that. They have no evidence at all!”

Essay: Oops, I'm a Politician!

Oops, I'm a Politician!
By Stephen Sokol




This post is about democracy, and why playing the lottery might just be a good idea.  This post is also about breaking an idea that has been conditioned into most American citizens by a lifetime of living in a republic: That politics and government are inaccessible to the vast majority of people.  In my conclusion, I will put forward some ideas as to how the United States government could go about making this tragic problem less prevalent.  

Many Americans, when asked under what type of government their country functions, will answer that it is a democracy.  What most do not realize is that this answer, while correct, is incomplete.  To be precise, American government is a representative democracy, a very popular form of government the world over.  Representative democracy is especially beloved by Western Powers such as the United States, Canada, and many European nations.  The term “representative democracy” essentially means that the citizens, instead of directly voting on issues, legislature, etc. elect representatives to vote on these issues for them.  The representative’s responsibilities are to represent the will of their voters and to exercise their own judgement in government affairs.  This system is designed to create a more efficient decision-making process and to protect minorities, both of which it does reasonably well.  However, there are many criticisms of representative democracy.

The first argument against representative democracy is a historical one.  As the saying goes, if we do not learn from past mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them, and historically most representative democracies have ended in oligarchies(rule by a few elites).  Many fear that to an extent this is already the case with the United States, or at least the beginnings of an unintentional oligarchy are starting to appear.  It takes a tremendous amount of money to be successful in politics, which already restrains many qualified people from running.  Not only this, but the existence of major parties which dominate the political arena means that only members of those parties are likely to run or be successful, leaving a huge number of more politically independent individuals out of the running.  Also, the vast majority of senate and congressional elections are won by people who are already members of those houses, because they have the connections and money necessary to run a more successful campaign.  Many worry that these combined forces lead to a somewhat elitist government, which could be in danger of one day becoming an oligarchy.  While this may be a somewhat extreme stance, there are other objections brought against representative democracy.

Representatives are elected to be a reflection of those who vote for them.  However, representatives are not legally bound to respect the wishes of their constituents once they are in office (though this makes their reelection unlikely).  Another issue is that, even though one of the purposes of representatives is to protect minorities, they are elected by a majority to address the majority’s concerns, leaving marginalized groups still potentially underrepresented.  A final argument against representative democracy is that representatives are far too focused on reelection, which detracts from their ability to concentrate on the legislature they are elected to help manage.  This focus on reelection can also cause politicians to vote in accordance to what their party wants, as opposed to what their conscience demands, so that they will remain popular with their constituents.

One proposed solution is sortition.  Sortition is a political system in which the majority of government positions are determined by chance, through a lottery, as opposed to elections.  At first glance this proposition may seem completely insane to the majority of readers.  Those readers are probably echoing the same question Socrates asked of Athenian democracy thousands of years ago, “Why should I leave the individuals who occupy government positions up to random chance instead of electing those who I know are qualified?”  My first response is that, as in the case of jury selection, the use of chance is not completely unprecedented in the american political and legal systems.  Essentially the concept of sortition is that political offices would be filled by individuals randomly chosen by lottery from a pool of candidates.  There are many benefits to sortition I would like to discuss, but first I will give voice to most of the criticisms against sortition and respond to them.

The first issue sortition faces is that lotteries don’t discriminate.  If a lottery determined every government position, we could wind up with an individual completely uneducated in military affairs being a general of the United States army.  This would have undoubtedly disastrous consequences.  There are some positions that must require skill, and this is why only the majority of government positions can be determined by lottery.  The jobs requiring a greater level of skill, such as military and diplomacy, could remain elected offices.  An argument still exists, however, that every office requires at least some level of skill.  Not only this, but many worry that dangerous people, like psychopaths, would wind up in office.  Sortition offers several potential solutions to this problem.  One solution would be to narrow the requirements to be in the pool of candidates.  Some ways of doing this would be to screen by education, experience, or mandated test scores.  Another approach to keeping unqualified individuals out of office would be to allow courts to call the necessary qualifications of an individual into question and bring them to trial on this charge.  If they are found unfit for their office they can be removed and replaced.  Another massive critique of sortition, and probably the most difficult to respond to, is the inconvenience caused by the process.  This same concern exists for jurors, but political offices would have undoubtedly more effect on a citizen’s life.  There are, however, solutions to this issue.  The first of these solutions is that some of the same selection processes that jurors undergo could be applied, whereby students who will be inconvenienced, those undergoing imminent medical procedures, and those who must care for someone can be excused.  Another solution would be government compensation for monetary losses incurred by selection.  Yet another solution proposes that the terms of offices be greatly reduced, or the number of mandatory meetings(though the latter is by far the least efficient of the proposed corrections).  Another critique of sortition is that it presents the risk of chance misrepresentation, though on the scale of an entire nation’s population, the statistical probability of this issue renders it unnecessary to consider.  The final critique of sortition is that politicians could not be held accountable for their actions, as they are not up for reelection.  This same argument, however, could be re-interpreted as positive for sortition, as it frees the politicians to make decisions based on their conscience instead of what their party or sponsors would want.

Sortition also has a great many benefits beyond representative democracy.  The primary advantage is also the core of the whole concept, cognitive diversity.  The argument, sometimes referred to as “the wisdom of crowds”, is that cognitive diversity, or a vast number of varying perspectives, is more valuable than a few experts when making a decision.  This theory was proposed by Yale-educated journalist named James Surowiecki.  His theory has since gained the support of many behavioral psychologists.  The second big contribution sortition can make is fairness to a far greater extent than is possible in a representative democracy.  This fairness is due to an unsurpassed ability to represent every citizen regardless of wealth, status, ethnicity, political party, or any other societal condition.  Random selection of politicians also pulls the rug out from under the corruption that plagues our government.  It does this by removing sponsors, party leaders, PAC’s and all other influencers of elections.  Sortition empowers the ordinary citizen, making their voices heard when otherwise they never could have been.  Lottery also cures two chronic problems with American voters: Their apathy due to too many elections(voter fatigue), and their lack of desire to become educated on political issues.  This system removes most elections, making the people focus more on the few important ones that remain, and forces those who might be randomly selected to be educated in the issues so that they can make intelligent decisions for their country.

Modern technology allows the process of random selection to be completely transparent and beyond influence, observable by the entire American populace.  This would alleviate the perceived issues of voter fraud and rigged elections by allowing people to watch algorithms randomly select individuals for civic service.  

Surely the American government could not suddenly make the transition to sortition and abandon elections overnight.  Neither the citizens nor infrastructure of the United States could survive so sudden, intense, or complete a transition.  The transition could be a partial or gradual one, beginning with a small body that determines legislature that is most prone to a conflict of interests such as setting salaries, as well as watching out for government corruption.  The next step might include simply replacing a couple house seats with randomly selected individuals.  Another step in the transition could be replacing one elected legislative house(i.e. Senate or Congress) with a randomly selected one, perhaps only to agree on legislature that elected officials prefer to avoid due to its controversial nature.  Some nations such as the UK, Canada, and Australia are already seriously debating replacing one legislative house in such a way.

The purpose of American government is to be democratic, which means representing the will of the people.  It is thus the responsibility of the American government to adapt as unexplored ways of best representing its citizens become apparent.  Sortition, while it may not be perfect in its pure form, could ultimately improve the United States government if it were adopted to some extent.  It could allow for more fair representation, reduced corruption, and significantly greater involvement of private citizens in determining their fate.  I do not pretend to know all the answers about how to implement sortition in US politics, but I do know that the issue is an important one, and it must become the subject of serious discussion in the political arena of the United States as well as among its citizens.  This discussion could at least spare us the problems of corruption and inefficiency that characterize our government, and at most save our nation from oligarchy.

Bonus Post: Flash Poetry Challenge #1

For this challenge, we started by simply choosing the title for a poem. Then everyone had three minutes to write an original poem to match the title. No starting over or changing the words after the fact. What you see is what you get!
--------------------------------------------------------------

Challenge Title #1: Silence




Stephen:
In the dark,
I missed my fan
Its comforting electric hum
I missed the crickets
The soundless void is stark
And the crickets here seem dumb
Devoid of home
At this silent sleepover
Surrounded by supposed friends
I truly feel alone


Nick:
Silence
A secret alliance
That subtle contrivance;
What you didn't say is
A sort of subliminal violence



Sarah:
If there is one thing
I avoid above all else
It is letting my world become soft enough
To hear my own heartbeat
Or the space between each heartbeat

The sound of it is like fear
The feel of it is like internal bleeding

Sometimes late at night
When it's too quiet
I go to the grocery store just
so I can hear the tired announcements
of the graveyard shift
But I quickly buy a cigarette
So I can go back home again
And be alone.



x

Nonsense Poetry #2: Butt Love

For this series of posts, we challenged ourselves to write an obscure-sounding poem with no intended meaning in mind. Then we all took turns analyzing each other’s poetry, to see if we could extract some meaning after the fact. It turns out, writing a truly meaningless poem is harder than it sounds!  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butt Love
By Sarah Sokol

Blossoming
Poetic Justice
Finds its wings in depths
Unknown to a child
Butt love
Is more powerful
In the end


Nick’s Analysis:
We'll keep this tactful... A simple ode to the finer things in life, Butt Love is a poem that penetrates deeply into the source of our greatest hopes and fears. It seems that justice is a dish best served warm and smelly.
Stephen’s Analysis:

This poem is about making a witty comeback at someone else’s expense.  The comeback is so good it can be called “poetic justice” and is sent winging with the rapidity and biting nature so foreign to children.  You have made your enemy the butt of your joke and had the last word, and you love it.

Mythological Creature Challenge #2: The Cyclopes

This the second in a series of posts wherein we challenged ourselves to write a piece that attempts to convince the reader of the existence of some mythological creature.
------------------------------------------------------------

The Real Cyclops
By Stephen Sokol

File:Human skeleton -Booth Museum, Brighton and Hove, East Sussex ...


The human mind has always shown an incredible propensity for fantastical creations, from mermaids to wendigos.  However this ability to invent some alternate, magical reality has its limitations.  Human brains have never built any of these fantasies from nothing.  Thor was crafted from a fear of storms, wendigos from a fear of greed, and mermaids from the baser appetites of sailors.  There is one creature of Greek and Roman myth that has always been written off as a pure invention of the mind, with no connection to reality whatsoever; the cyclops.  

Cyclopes are portrayed in myth as huge, humanoid monsters with only one eye in the center of their forehead.  Such a description is not likely to make a person believe in the Cyclops, but evidence shows that creatures of this description may have existed.  The above image is of a humanoid skeleton discovered by a Pakistani farmer when he was digging for a new well.  It is difficult to tell from the picture, but the skeleton actually stands at twelve feet tall.  This is undeniable archaeological evidence for the existence of giants.  But such evidence is hardly shocking.  For millennia people have written about giants, most famously in the Old-Testament description of Goliath.  But this is not the only evidence for cyclopes.  The image on the left is of a child born in Saint Jude’s Literal Sacred Heart Hospital in 2013.  The child is reported to have been born with a horribly deformed body, full of open wounds which had to be stitched.  The infant had only one eye that was nearly blind, and no nose.  It was also diagnosed with with a pituitary tumor, which would have affected the child’s growth.  Despite the doctors’ best efforts the child died within five weeks.  It was later discovered that the child had been given a medicine to which he was in all likelihood highly allergic, which is more plausibly what led to his death.  This discovery led to many lawsuits against the hospital.  Some doctors have said that, while this child would never have lived long, it might have lasted to the age of thirty.  Interestingly, this is the projected average oldest age to which a “giant” can live.
File:B. C. Hirst & G. A. Piersol, Human monstrosities. Wellcome ...
What I propose is that at some point in Greek history, a child was born matching this description, having one eye and a growing disorder which turned them into a giant.  Such a person would be seen as a monster, and would probably learn quickly to hate their fellow humans and possibly attack them.  This poor child may have been driven to some distant island, inspiring myths such as the Odyssey in which Odysseus discovers an island with a violent cyclops on it.

As is so often the case, when humans encountered something different from the norm, they labeled it a monster, and so they created one.  The birth of a myth of giant and terrible monsters with one eye most likely began with the tragically real cyclops: A deformed and frightened child alienated by society.

Essay: What the Ten Commandments (sort of) Got Right

What the Ten Commandments (Sort of) Got Right:
Thoughts on Ethical Consumerism
By Nicholas Sokol


If you are reading this essay, there is a good chance that you are wealthy by global standards. At the very least, you live in a wealthy society that affords you the luxury to select between more or less ethical choices when it comes to buying things. The problem is that making these choices is often difficult and requires a lot of time and effort, and not all of us can be moral philosophers. In fact, even moral philosophers can’t be moral philosophers twenty-four hours a day. Faced with this daunting fact, even the most well-intentioned of us might be tempted to let the whole project fall to the wayside and simply do whatever is most expedient in the moment. Over the centuries countless attempts have been made to address this dilemma. The most famous of these in western culture is probably the ten commandments, which among other things, counsels us to love our neighbors, and not to kill anyone. It’s a good start, but it doesn’t do much to help us decide which brand of shirt to buy, or where we should go out for dinner. Perhaps we were never meant to reach this level of beneficence, but given our unique place in history, I believe it is our duty to try.

If you having been paying any attention to the movement towards ethical consumerism in recent years, you have probably felt yourself pulled in a millions directions at once. With the level of information that is now available to the average consumer, we are discovering more and more the hidden suffering that can be left in the wake of an ordinary activity like buying a shirt. Whether it’s boycotting this or that restaurant chain, or avoiding clothes made in certain countries, or limiting certain kinds of animal products, there are certainly a lot of opportunities for following the “do less harm” principle in our day-to-day shopping. Of course these are only a few of the opportunities that exist, and each of these has its own set of complex considerations. For example, you may find that agricultural, or textile workers in a developing nation may be treated poorly (by our standards) by the company that supplies you with underwear. But with a little more research you may realize that the people being employed by the company in question may have had no other options for work, and that the quality and stability of their lives has been improved by having even a substandard job. Or for another example, you may avoid purchasing vegetables that are imported from other countries due to the environmental cost of transport. But the environmental cost may be a wash if you are instead replacing these purchases with items from local temperature-controlled growhouses. The point is that it is difficult to make these kinds of ethical evaluations unless you truly have all the pertinent information. And even then, the information can change so quickly as to make your previous research irrelevant.

I’ll just add a quick note here that when I frame the issue of choosing one purchase over another, it is implied that making some purchase must be necessary. But there may be some minimalists in the audience shaking their heads and rightly noting that sometimes the best thing to do is to avoid making a purchase all together. If you want to do good with your money, why not avoid buying anything besides the very bare essentials, and donate the rest to charity? The counterargument to this is that the spending of some money contributes to the economy and the general affluence of our society which has given us the luxury to make choices in the first place. Certainly sacrificing some excess comforts for the sake of raising the standard of living for someone less fortunate is a wonderful thing to do. But let’s not forget that it is our privilege at this time and place in the history of human civilization to even have the luxury of considering such choices. I don’t believe we should be tempted, as some are, to throw away everything that is so wonderful about living in a wealthy society in the name of dragging the whole world’s standard of living down to some ideal of equality.

Now assuming that we are going to make the choice to purchase some item, whether needed or not, how do we go about deciding what to do? One way to go about it is to evaluate each purchase on a case by case basis. Keep resources handy for looking up dubious items, and make these kinds of decisions on the fly. The downside to this method is that it takes a lot of energy and concentration. I think for most of us, this kind of effort is not sustainable in the long term. When we don’t have the information in hand, or when we are tired or rushed, we will be unlikely to keep up the effort needed to keep evaluating our purchases.

A better way to go about this project is to take a little time to examine the various ways in which harm is caused by our consumerism, and pick one or two of the worst offenders. Then we can establish a simple rule, to be followed all of the time, which will have the effect of reducing the net harm caused by our consumerism. For example, I have given up almost all animal products because I think they represent some of the worst violations of the dignity of life, as well as being terrible for the environment. I no longer have to scratch my head over which brand of chicken was best raised, I just don’t buy any of them ever. You don’t have to go full vegan to follow this principle. You could simply pick a single animal product (or other ethically dubious item) that you feel that you could do without, and then simply decide never to buy it again. This idea works under the assumption that it is better to make a single decision that will reduce the harm of our purchases for the rest of our lives, than to sporadically put out a lot of effort towards making kinder purchases overall.

Another good example is a friend of mine who decided that he wanted to move towards a zero waste lifestyle which would be better for the environment. His work required him to travel and eat out a lot, so he decided to carry reusable silverware with him everywhere he went, and to always ask for no plastic straws. Instead of having to constantly make the decision to try and generate less trash every day, he made a simple decision that he could easily implement on constant basis without having to think about it. The beauty of both these examples is that not only are they simple and easy to implement, they are not subject to the rapid change in information. Unless it is discovered that cows enjoy being slaughtered, or that plastic is good for ocean life, using reusable silverware and avoiding animal products are always going to be a nice thing to do.

If you’re like me you probably say that you want to be a conscientious consumer, but the truth is that you only sometimes want to be a conscientious consumer. The rest of the time we just want to live our lives. That’s why devising and adopting generally applicable rules for shopping can be such an effective way to reduce the harm of our purchases for the long term. By this I don’t mean to imply that we shouldn’t succumb to the whims of our better angels and do more good when we feel like it. But having a couple of guidelines to mindlessly follow the rest of the time can establish a base of moral behavior that has the potential to do a lot of good, in a way, behind our backs. While I no longer consider myself religious, I won’t hesitate to give credit to many religions for having figured all of this out long ago. Of course some of the rules of religion cover complex ethical material that can’t possibly be governed effectively by a single rule (like “thou shalt not kill”), but the takeaway for me is that if the rule is generalizable enough, people can follow it day to day without having to think, and hopefully behave better for it.

In closing I’d like to challenge everyone to spend some time examining their purchasing habits and determine which of them may be causing potential harm. Or perhaps you have already thought about this before and you are now feeling pangs of guilt for the steps you have already not taken. In either case, let’s find one change we can easily make forever, and take one more step towards the goal of doing the least harm.

Nonsense Poetry Challenge #1: Five Doves

For this series of posts, we challenged ourselves to write an obscure-sounding poem with no intended meaning in mind. Then we all took turns analyzing each other’s poetry, to see if we could extract some meaning after the fact. It turns out, writing a truly meaningless poem is harder than it sounds!  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five Doves
By Stephen Sokol
Whence do the five doves come?
When all is said and all is done,
Who then can truly say,
I alone have overcome.
And passing on the night-bird’s way,
Who can truly bear the sun?


Nick’s Analysis:
The environmental protection agencies of 5 great world powers are symbolized here by 5 doves. However this poem seems to be a call for vigilante action in response to their ineffectiveness at preventing global warming. Acting in the shadows, one alone can bear the power of the scorching sun. God save us all!

Sarah’s Analysis:
The five doves represent the four horsemen of the apocalypse, and the fifth is your soul... This poem is a truly beautiful and epic tale of the only pure man, the only one who survives the end of the world... Who then discovers he is left in a burning wasteland, and though he can survive... Does he want to?