dailyduncan

Need to lose weight in a hurry? Diets can take time. Here’s eight overlooked methods for instantly shedding mass:

1. Remove lint from bellybutton.

2. Clip fingernails and toenails.

3. Exfoliate.

4. Excrete.

5. Blow nose.

6. Shave head and body hair.

7. Donate blood.

8. Spit.

The average age of marriage for women in Kuwait is 15.4. This statistic causes discomfort for many people because the average age of marriage for women in the developed world is double that of Kuwait. When we imagine a fifteen year old girl getting married, we almost certainly picture an innocent, helpless girl robbed of her independence through coercion into an unhappy relationship. We can’t help but revile such practices, since girls of that age in the developed world are still considered children and concern themselves with homework and kittens, not raising a family. But is there really a moral standard for the age of marriage or, more specifically, childbearing? And if so, what is that age and how is it decided? There are several ways to approach this topic, let’s begin with a moral perspective.

Placing age limits is discrimination. This makes children the most ostracized members of society. Children can’t marry, can’t vote, can’t drive, can’t work, can’t destroy their bodies with alcohol or cigarettes, and they are also segregated into their own education and prison facilities. All of this is just fine, of course, because we know that children are foolish and irresponsible, that’s why we keep knives out of reach of them. All youth are underprivileged, but that is something that we know and accept, so there isn’t really a moral argument for children having the right to bear children in this cultural climate. Let’s move on to the emotional aspect of this issue.

Children not only make poor choices, they are also emotionally unstable. By restricting their freedom we are protecting them from the consequences of their own irrational behavior. But again, determining the age that they are emotionally prepared to make these decisions is somewhat arbitrary. It probably has less to do with the number of days spent they’ve spent on Earth and more to do with what they learn from culture and school. In America young girls are taught math, science and history, not how to feed and care for babies. At some point, however, children do become emotionally stable enough to make life-changing decisions, and it’s quite possible that age is 15.4 in Kuwait. After all, we expect kids these days to factor polynomials and there’s no way that raising a child is that complicated. Now we see that there is no absolute moral law or concrete stage of emotional development dictating an appropriate age for bearing children. Perhaps our friend, biology, can shed some light on this shady topic.

Puberty is a stage of physical development which occurs between the ages of 12 and 16 in boys and between age 10 and 14 in girls. During this period the body undergoes drastic morphological transformation and your life sucks. The eventual result of this process is a hairy, sweaty human body with a fully-functional reproductive system. So, girls are biologically prepared to bear children by age 15, which is 10 years younger the average age of a woman’s first childbirth in the United States. This means that by the time the average American woman gives birth to her first child, her reproductive system has been idle for about a decade. Talk about rotten eggs.

All other mating creatures on the planet will attempt to procreate as soon as they are able. Is it really absurd to ask a sexually mature female to bear a child? Comparatively speaking, no. Humans have seized control of their reproductive destiny from mother nature and redefined the appropriate age for parenting. We now stress the importance of independence, education and financial success over responsibility and family. The result is young people who are able and willing to engage in sexual relations, but are not expected to accept the outcome of such activity. They scatter seeds but don’t tend their crop.

Perhaps our discomfort with 15 year old mothers simply reflects a difference in culture, or a maybe it reveals our failure to properly prepare young people for reproduction, a natural and necessary ingredient for existence. Either way we shouldn’t judge Kuwaitis. They are merely adhering to biological development, like every other animal.

end if

Despite how insightful the idea may seem, the opposite of love is not indifference. The opposite of something isn’t nothing, it’s something that is opposed or contrary to it. If the opposite of love is indifference, then the opposite of every emotion must also be indifference. Though cold is technically the absence of heat, the opposite of a high temperature is a low temperature, not a mild temperature. So then, what are opposites, exactly, and how do we determine their identity?

Although we all understand what an opposite is, defining it is a little tricky. Take evil, for example: everyone knows that the opposite of evil is good, and that good triumphs over evil, but how do we define good in relation to evil? Good is not merely the absence of evil, neither is it something totally dissimilar; it is the inverse, the nemesis or expressed mathematically, evil^-1.

There are actually two distinct variations of opposites: polar opposites and binary opposites. Examples of polar opposition would include an inch and a mile or constipation and diarrhea, because they reside at different ends of a spectrum. Polar opposites are simply the inverse of each other and usually aren’t very difficult to discern.

Binary opposites, however, are not commonly identified as part of a spectrum, but are defined in relation to a counterpart. Men and women, for example, are opposites not because they are contrary or inverted, which in some ways they are, but because they make up the gender binary. Using this interpretation, the opposite of night would be day and the opposite of a hand would be a foot. A tall man is an example of something that has both a binary and polar opposite.

Here we see the different combinations of potential opposites for a tall man. The opposite of the subject, man, is woman, and the opposite of the attribute, tall, is short. So how do we determine the opposite of a tall man, since it’s comprised of two components?

There are three dominant theories which dictate how we derive the opposite in this case. The first is opposite subject theory, which states that we should find the inverse of the subject, which results in a tall woman. The second is known as opposite attribute theory, which requires us to invert the attributes, which produces a short man. The third theory is called complete opposite theory, and it states that we must find the opposite of the subject and the attributes, which gives us a short woman.

One theory that has fallen out of favor in recent years is opposite attraction theory, which uses the laws of attraction to deduce opposites. This theory is very fun and it works great in romance and electromagnetism, but not much else. Each of our three dominant theories has its own strengths and non-strengths which we will be revealed by examining our next example: a baby boy playing.

Let’s see how each of our theories decodes the opposite in this scenario. Complete opposite theory would have us invert both attributes, baby and playing, as well as the subject, boy, which produces an adult girl working. Although this answer is very convincing, it produces a result that is totally dissimilar to the original. This method is logical but it breaks down when we apply it to certain well-known opposites. We all know the opposite of walking forward is walking backward, not running backward. We also know that the opposite of a person getting older is a person getting younger, not an animal getting younger. This is because opposites must share a point of reference, likely the subject. If they don’t, then we end up with two things that are totally different, which is not what opposites are about. If x and x^-1 are opposites, then the complete opposite of x + 1 would be (y+0)^-1, which is obviously ridiculous.

Opposite subject theory would have us invert the subject, boy, resulting in a baby girl playing. This theory works very well when dealing with subjects with obvious binary or polar opposites, but what about something that doesn’t have an clear opposite, like a dishwasher? This is a problem for complete opposite theory as well, since it also requires us to invert the subject.

The third option, opposite attribute theory, asks us to invert all of the described attributes, leaving only the subject unchanged, which in this case gives us an adult boy working. For a long time this theory worked fine and the land was green and good, until the crystal cracked. A fringe theory broke off from opposite attribute theory and it wanted us to find the primary or defining attribute of the subject and invert only that attribute. In this case, the primary attribute would be baby, since it most intrinsically and decisively defines the subject, so we would get an adult boy playing. The difficulty with primary attribute theory is discerning which attribute is primary. A big blue fish has two equally defining attributes, rendering the decision arbitrary. This means that there is either no correct opposite or a number of equally correct opposites, which is dumb.

The theory that is most consistent and that most easily accepts exceptions is opposite attribute theory. The only condition which runs it ashore is when a subject has no describing attributes, in which case we can differ to opposite subject theory, since that is the only possible solution.

The opposite of a scary carnivorous dinosaur standing in the rain is a friendly herbivorous dinosaur sitting in the sun. The opposite of a dinosaur is some kind of common, uninteresting modern mammal, most likely a cat.

end if

People are like cars — when we get old we start to break down. Here are a few ways that our aging bodies resemble old cars:

They require increased maintenance and replacement parts.

Their speed and carrying capacity is diminished.

The valves and seals begin to leak.

Many of their parts no longer function.

The exterior is dull and dated.

Businesses replace them with the younger generation.

They are not compatible with modern electronic devices.

They emit strange noises and odors.

Having one won’t attract potential mates.

Their last years are spent decaying near others of their kind.

When the last whale washes up on shore,
When the last elephant is poached for its tusks,
When the last eagle flies over the last crumbling mountain,
We will mourn.

But who will mourn the snail, the spider, the mouse?
The mole, the gnat, the tick, the grouse?
The fly on our windshield, the ant beneath our feet?
Or the swarms of rodents infesting our streets?

People hold many different views on the role and value of animals in our society, but one thing that they all agree on, whether they would admit it or not, is that some animals are more valuable than others. Every animal has a value, and that value is based its intelligence, size and majesty. We will now look at each of these features in order to better understand how to rank an animal’s value. Let’s start with the least important feature: intelligence.

When animals show intelligence we see something of ourselves in them and a kinship is shared. When we watch a raven solve a puzzle, a dolphin swim beside a vessel or a dog wag its tail with glee, we can’t help but project our emotions onto those creatures and treat them as a member of the elite league of intelligent creatures. Conversely, when we watch an animal do something stupid, like when bird flies in front of a car, a fish jumps out of its aquarium or an insect fly into our mouth, we can’t help but feel estranged from such creatures. We just can’t imagine what, if anything, they were thinking, so we treat them with disdain.

Because humans are both the most important and the most intelligent animal, we might think that intelligence is the most important feature, but there are many animals that show high intelligence that are not valued very highly, most notably birds and rats.

The second most important feature is size. When an animal is small we tend not to care about it. When was the last time we shed a tear for a bee or a louse? It can’t be a coincidence that all of the creatures adored by animal activists are relatively large. As an example, if we were to rank the importance of a rabbit, a snail, a cow, a whale and a salamander, the result would be as follows:

Whale > Cow > Rabbit > Salamander > Snail

The reason why size is important is not exactly clear. Part of the reason is that we cannot relate to tiny creatures because we cannot easily see them or observe their behavior. Another reason could be that smaller animals tend to exist in large numbers, which makes them seem expendable. It could also be that small creatures do not have much blood, so their deaths are not gruesome. Size matters, but sometimes small animals can have big value, such as seahorses, hummingbirds and exotic frogs.

The final and most important feature in animal value is majesty. Majesty is why we prefer parrots over pigs and bunnies over barracuda. The majesty of an animal has many facets, including adorability, ferocity, beauty, strength and peculiarity, but it is hard to define concretely. There are, however, some general guidelines that majestic animals tend to follow:

Don’t carry diseases.

Don’t sting or bite people.

Don’t have small, soulless eyes.

Don’t be belligerent and numerous.

Don’t eat people’s food.

Don’t suck blood.

Don’t crawl or slither.

Don’t secrete anything.

Don’t buzz.

Don’t have more than four legs.

Majestic animals don’t do these things; they soar, gallop, glide, roar, splash and sing. Animals that don’t follow these guidelines are subject to hatred and revulsion. One creature which is currently experiencing the negative effects of having a low animal value is the mosquito. Bill Gates, a well-known rich man, has declared war on the mosquito because it spreads malaria, a disease which is responsible for hundreds of thousands of human deaths every year. Gates is bent on the eradication of these helpless insects, which are not defended by animal rights groups simply because they have little value.

So be careful, little creatures, what you do.

end if

In the year 2000 there were over six million motor vehicle accidents in the United States, which resulted in 41,945 human fatalities. In that same year an estimated 247,000 deer were maimed or killed in motor vehicle collisions, and it’s likely that other species, such as birds, suffered even greater losses. Driving is undeniably dangerous.

Many of these accidents were likely influenced by intoxication or carelessness, but piloting a 1,000kg metal box at speeds exceeding 100 km/h is inherently hazardous. In an effort to mitigate the number of vehicle collisions, some groups are lobbying for reduced speed limits, especially in residential and high-traffic areas. The premise that slower vehicles will produce fewer collisions couldn’t be less inaccurate.

It’s obvious to most that slower vehicles are safer, since the force of impact is diminished and the window for driver reaction is expanded. Objects with no velocity are the easiest to avoid and they rarely crash into things. Unfortunately, getting motorists to slow down is not as simple as a mere adjustment in signage.

A report by the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center concluded that neither lowering nor raising speed limits by up to 24 km/h had a significant effect on motorist speed. The report’s conclusion states, “motorist do not alter their speed to conform to speed limits they perceive as unreasonable for prevailing conditions.” But, even if drivers did obey the new speed limits, a more challenging question must be answered: how many lives are we willing to sacrifice?

Most groups advocating lower speed limits are requesting that they be reduced by 10 to 20 km/h, but if motorists were convinced to obey the new limits, there would still be collisions, injuries and deaths. So, how many fatalities are we willing to accept as a natural consequence of driving? This is a very difficult question to answer, and it applies to many areas beyond that of motor vehicles.

In every industry there are deaths, injuries or accidents of some kind. Rules are created, precautions are taken and laws are passed to reduce these incidents, but aren’t really aimed at reducing the number of incidents to zero. This is because safety is inversely proportional to efficiency.

Imposing health and safety practices on an industry will inevitably make it less efficient. Conversely, allowing an industry to operate without any concern for safety would likely be very efficient, that is, until its work force is deceased or debilitated. Some concerned individuals feel a moral obligation to avoid purchasing products from companies that exploit people, animals or the environment, but again, how much is too much? Let’s look at some common examples of taking an absolute position on a subject that is not absolute.

Many people hold a negative view of oil companies because of the environmental damages that they inflict, so they bicycle or take public transit. But almost all the products they buy are transported by fuel-burning freight and constructed with oil-based synthetic materials.

Some people choose not to eat meat so that animals might be spared unnatural suffering and an early death, but many animals are killed in by farming machinery during the harvest of crops, and are also displaced by agricultural properties. Of course, they are not concerned with the number of insects that are crushed beneath their feet every day, since bugs do not hold a high animal value.

The idea that moral issues are not as dry and cut as we might like can make us feel overwhelmed and impotent. When we realize that no person, organization or action is purely good or evil, we can succumb to what is known as the Grey Escape — an apathetic exit to a moral predicament. The Grey Escape is the argument that because an issue is complex and its answer is not easily reached, it is not worth investigation and debate. People who subscribe to this line of thinking are often too concerned with entertainment, success and pleasure to bother the moral and abstract. Because the matter is grey, they’d say, the issue deserves not the time of day.

Grey things are the most important.

end if

Back in the mid 2000s the housing market in the United States was swelling at an unprecedented rate, which ultimately proved unsustainable. The bubble ruptured in 2007, gushing its toxic muck into the sea of the global economy, poisoning the shore of every industry with the pestilent surge of recession. As industries restructured to survive the fiscal famine, governments were forced to make difficult and unpopular choices, including the bail out of some companies that were deemed, “too big to fail.”

There is a tendency for humans to be careless with plenty, prudent with little. The more we have, less we appreciate it — this is who we are. Wealth and waste go hand in hand, for as we acquire more things their value must diminish, which makes us less cautious. In economics this phenomenon is known as supply and demand. No one understands this concept more poorly than special interest groups.

When times are tough we are confined to contentment and obliged to be grateful, but not these special interest groups. While many are satisfied with mere survival, they continue to relentlessly pound the doors of government offices, demanding ever more, ever more. Because of their narrow field of vision, special interest groups care not for the plight of others, but, like ravenous beasts ravaging a kill, they strive to plunge their jaws into the bloody carcass of public funds. One can’t help but wonder how much money these groups would take if given a blank check, since they seem to have no problem forcing the government into deficit. What they fail to realize is that the money they receive comes at the expense of other programs, even at the expense of their own future funding.

Governments are constantly tangled up in labor disputes and collective bargaining, attempting to satisfy those persistent pests without compromising their budget. It seems like every time we turn on the news there’s some new program aimed at washing stray cats or launching elderly citizens into space. As great as those ideas are, government funds do have a limit and at some point they must decline such programs. Fortunately for special interest groups, public support can often sway the government into coughing up the cash. By using ad campaigns, job action and strikes, these groups can rally weak-minded citizens to their cause. But even after an agreement is reached, there’s no doubt that they will be back at the table, begging for more money to cover the increase in cost of living and inflation.

So how can this cycle be broken? There must be a way to permanently stave off the endless demands and protect future generations from enduring the consequences of our fiscal frailty. The answer is by assigning funding based on a percentage of GDP, tax revenue and/or inflation.

Public programs and wages would receive funding as a percentage of projected tax revenue every year. By dividing up the pie in percentages, the size of the slice is based on the size of the pie, so there would be no quarrel over the portion received. By agreeing to a percentage of the total budget, public programs and wages increase with inflation and economic growth, requiring no renegotiation for increased compensation.

The private sector is more complicated, but there are models which allow employees to share in the profit of their company. Private sector wages should, at minimum, be tied to inflation. Minimum wage, however, is dictated by the government and would be set to a rate based inflation, as well as the economic performance of the nation, state or province.

The idea is simple: instead of constantly renegotiating wages and funding, tie those things to the same thing that dictates the available funds. Anything else would be neither consistent, Norfair.

end if