I've been doing a little research on what it is like to be a vegetarian in China and there seem to be opinions across the board on this topic. On the one hand, China was a Buddhist country for several hundred years, meaning a huge part of the population did not eat meat for religious reasons. However, this is no longer the case in modern China. Also, many poor people in China cannot afford to eat much (if any) meat. Yet this does not mean they understand someone who chooses to not eat meat. If anything, the absence of meat almost deifies it, undermining their involuntary vegetarianism.
The main conclusion that I have come to is that it is not going to be all that difficult to eat (mostly) vegetarian in China, especially considering my exceptionally loose definition of the term. It just involves being flexible and knowing a little Chinese. This website has been pretty helpful. I think I will ask my Mandarin teacher as well.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Eating Animals
This is an interview with author Jonathan Safran Foer (Everything is Illuminated) about his new book, Eating Animals which I really REALLY want to read.
I'm sure it is preachy to some extent and probably revolting to a larger extent, as he goes into a lot of the details of factory farming. However, rather than trying to convince everyone to be vegetarian, Foer simply wants humans to "be informed and take responsibility"...whatever that may mean to you. More importantly, he explores the "human costs" of eating factory farmed meat and claims that while it might be cheaper initially than eating humanely raised animals the long term health and environmental effects are extremely costly.
Natalie Portman makes a really interesting remark when she says that 'what Foer most bravely details is how eating animals pollutes not only our backyards, but also our beliefs'. A lifelong vegetarian, she says that Foer's book has turned her into a vegan activist. I also like this comment she made about The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan:
'I say that Foer's ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile. But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just "This is tasty, and that's why I do it." He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore's Dilemma, which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don't believe in rape, but if it's what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).'
Anyway, just some food for thought.
I'm sure it is preachy to some extent and probably revolting to a larger extent, as he goes into a lot of the details of factory farming. However, rather than trying to convince everyone to be vegetarian, Foer simply wants humans to "be informed and take responsibility"...whatever that may mean to you. More importantly, he explores the "human costs" of eating factory farmed meat and claims that while it might be cheaper initially than eating humanely raised animals the long term health and environmental effects are extremely costly.
Natalie Portman makes a really interesting remark when she says that 'what Foer most bravely details is how eating animals pollutes not only our backyards, but also our beliefs'. A lifelong vegetarian, she says that Foer's book has turned her into a vegan activist. I also like this comment she made about The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan:
'I say that Foer's ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile. But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just "This is tasty, and that's why I do it." He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore's Dilemma, which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don't believe in rape, but if it's what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).'
Anyway, just some food for thought.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
voila la voile
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Also!
I got accepted into the Teach in Shenzhen program! So barring any unforeseen obstacles (and assuming I can come up with the $$), I will be traveling to China in August 2010. Yay!
No absolute free flow of information
An opinion piece from the China Daily website reveals an extremely interesting perspective on Chinese censorship of the internet.
Is the U.S. just using this face off between China and Google to once again intervene in our own "big brother knows best" style? While I don't think it is in any way acceptable for the Chinese government to hack into the gmail accounts of Chinese (or foreign) activists, and I support Google pulling out of China if it continues to extensively censor the flow of information over the interwebs, I think the U. S. needs to recognize that there is not much else we can do besides make a big fuss about it. It is not our place to intervene no matter how much we think we know better. Besides, I am positive that the United States government censors our interwebs as well, just not to the same extent. Moderation is key.
Is the U.S. just using this face off between China and Google to once again intervene in our own "big brother knows best" style? While I don't think it is in any way acceptable for the Chinese government to hack into the gmail accounts of Chinese (or foreign) activists, and I support Google pulling out of China if it continues to extensively censor the flow of information over the interwebs, I think the U. S. needs to recognize that there is not much else we can do besides make a big fuss about it. It is not our place to intervene no matter how much we think we know better. Besides, I am positive that the United States government censors our interwebs as well, just not to the same extent. Moderation is key.
Monday, January 25, 2010
two articles about China
In an effort to do some research about China before I leave for Shenzhen in August (this is still pending but I am assuming that I will go one way or another) I am going to read and blog about one article a day that relates in some way to China or Chinese language/culture/people.
Today I have read two, both panel discussions from the New York Times. The first, Will China Achieve Science Supremacy, discusses the merits and obstacles of scientific research in China. Several of the panelists commented on how constant political campaigning interferes with scientific growth.
"Hu Jintao, the current supremo, has reinvigorated Marxist instruction in schools and universities. At the very least, incessant campaigns are a distraction from real research and study. Every month spent on understanding “the primary stage of socialism” or “the important thought of the Three Represents” is one fewer month devoted to the periodic table or sub-atomic particles. Of course, the new ideological indoctrination stifles free thinking across the board."
-Gordon G. Chang, author of “The Coming Collapse of China” and a columnist at Forbes.com.
There was also significant mention of recent academic frauds in China. This is attributed to pressure on scientists for more "visible," published and highly quantitative (rather than qualitative) results. In that same vein, one panelist notes that China is "pursuing a brute force strategy" when it comes to investing in the country's scientific future.
"[China is] creating many new institutions of higher education that in turn will produce a large number of new scientists and engineers. The underlying assumption seems to be that quantity will lead to quality; in other words, world class achievement will emerge when the 'installed base' of talent reaches a critical mass."
-John Kao, the chairman and founder of the Institute for Large Scale Innovation, has been an adviser to many organizations involved in developing innovation strategies and capabilities. A former Harvard Business School professor, he is the author of “Jamming” and “Innovation Nation.”
The implications of this article are that China is working hard to create a foundation for scientific thought and innovation in today's society. However, there will have to be some necessary changes in both government views and policy, as well as a fundamental change in direction in order for this scientific drive to flourish. There cannot be innovation without creativity and freedom from internal (i.e. Chinese govt) pressures to produce quantitative results.
The second article is (very tellingly so) much less meaty than the first and concerns perceptions of race in China. Aside from talking about China's history of diversity and a few recent issues of public identity questioning (taking place on a Chinese 'American Idol' type show), none of the panelists really addresses directly or extensively the subject of how different races are perceived or treated in China. Perhaps this is because "Chinese people" are by self-definition multi-ethnic, with the majority being Han and the countless other ethnicities considered minorities. This would obviously create a completely different perception of race than for example an American point of view. However, it is also apparent from this article that not much (scholarly or otherwise) attention has been given to the impact of racial diversity in China and with the country's increasingly global and international environment, this is going to be a hugely important issue before too long.
Today I have read two, both panel discussions from the New York Times. The first, Will China Achieve Science Supremacy, discusses the merits and obstacles of scientific research in China. Several of the panelists commented on how constant political campaigning interferes with scientific growth.
"Hu Jintao, the current supremo, has reinvigorated Marxist instruction in schools and universities. At the very least, incessant campaigns are a distraction from real research and study. Every month spent on understanding “the primary stage of socialism” or “the important thought of the Three Represents” is one fewer month devoted to the periodic table or sub-atomic particles. Of course, the new ideological indoctrination stifles free thinking across the board."
-Gordon G. Chang, author of “The Coming Collapse of China” and a columnist at Forbes.com.
There was also significant mention of recent academic frauds in China. This is attributed to pressure on scientists for more "visible," published and highly quantitative (rather than qualitative) results. In that same vein, one panelist notes that China is "pursuing a brute force strategy" when it comes to investing in the country's scientific future.
"[China is] creating many new institutions of higher education that in turn will produce a large number of new scientists and engineers. The underlying assumption seems to be that quantity will lead to quality; in other words, world class achievement will emerge when the 'installed base' of talent reaches a critical mass."
-John Kao, the chairman and founder of the Institute for Large Scale Innovation, has been an adviser to many organizations involved in developing innovation strategies and capabilities. A former Harvard Business School professor, he is the author of “Jamming” and “Innovation Nation.”
The implications of this article are that China is working hard to create a foundation for scientific thought and innovation in today's society. However, there will have to be some necessary changes in both government views and policy, as well as a fundamental change in direction in order for this scientific drive to flourish. There cannot be innovation without creativity and freedom from internal (i.e. Chinese govt) pressures to produce quantitative results.
The second article is (very tellingly so) much less meaty than the first and concerns perceptions of race in China. Aside from talking about China's history of diversity and a few recent issues of public identity questioning (taking place on a Chinese 'American Idol' type show), none of the panelists really addresses directly or extensively the subject of how different races are perceived or treated in China. Perhaps this is because "Chinese people" are by self-definition multi-ethnic, with the majority being Han and the countless other ethnicities considered minorities. This would obviously create a completely different perception of race than for example an American point of view. However, it is also apparent from this article that not much (scholarly or otherwise) attention has been given to the impact of racial diversity in China and with the country's increasingly global and international environment, this is going to be a hugely important issue before too long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)