Author: Reginald Finley Sr

The vegan philosophy and lifestyle has grown significantly in recent years. I was exposed to the idea of not eating animal flesh on one of my radio programs a decade ago but it didn’t stick. It seemed to me that the guest had some valid arguments but I just didn’t wish to change my very comfortable lifestyle habits.

Eventually, I succumbed to its message of caring and love. I have been vegan for 2 years now and I was a vegetarian for 2 years before that. When my veganism is questioned, many are somewhat surprised to hear what some of the motivating factors were for me in going… and staying Vegan.

I realized that was being contradictory

For the last few years I have been vegan. Why? Well, I chose to go vegan as something just didn’t sound right about the statement. “I love animals”, while simultaneously and purposefully contributing to an industry that contributes to their pain, suffering, and death. Moral, ethical, ecological, and health arguments aside, that realization was one of the major catalysts that started my journey towards veganism; and, it is my primary argument for veganism. It’s simple and easily defensible. As a logical, rational, critical thinker, consistency and attempting to avoid contradiction is paramount. Continuing to eat meat seemed to be a rather blatant and inexcusable contradiction.

But what if humans must eat meat?

In speaking with purposeful meat-eaters who hear my argument, typically there are three responses: 1.) “I don’t care. I like meat.” 2.) “Morality is subjective, so you can’t tell me that I’m wrong.” 3.) “But we need meat.” Out of these three, the 3rd one in my view is a more addressable and easily researched to see if this is true. There just aren’t valid studies showing that in a 1st world society, that humans “need” to eat meat to survive. In fact, almost all studies show health benefits to switching to either less meat, or none. Whereas meat consumption, in general, in 1st world countries are attributed to a large variety of sicknesses and illnesses in humans.

There is no scientific evidence that humans biologically “need meat” to survive. In the past, some populations of humans and human cousins became dependent on sources of animal protein (including insects) in their journeys northward and in lean times. In modern times, humans near the oceans have become dependent on sea life to thrive but it is NOT some biological axiom that they must do so. Animal nutrition aids in these population’s survival, but so would plenty of fruits, nuts, seeds, vegetables, seaweed, and possibly an occasional vitamin (though not necessary). Many humans today have a more cultural perspective about meat intake which typically isn’t very conducive to health as these products are high in sodium and saturated fat. A good-sense diet rich in fiber, starches, green leafy plants, nuts and legumes is the best way to go and can in many cases reverse or lessen the severity of many diet-based medical conditions. Can I eat very little meat and be healthy? Sure! But if I don’t need meat to live and survive, why would I purposefully contribute to the pain, suffering, and death of innocent sentient beings?

Why not be more compassionate?

As I alluded to above in (1), some humans just don’t care about the lives of other animals, they feel non-human animals are beneath them, and that they can do whatever they wish to do to them. Their sensation of taste and satiety makes more sense to them than making conscious and caring efforts to prevent the needless suffering and harm to sentient beings. For those people, I have no argument and wouldn’t attempt to debate them as we are on diametrically two different playing fields. You cannot make someone care. Either you do care, or you don’t. For me, since becoming vegan, I have found myself more compassionate and loving of most people and animals.

Some have argued that just existing as a human has negative consequences for other life on this planet. I cannot find fault with this argument as it is a true statement; however, pointing out that I harm life regardless doesn’t justifying increasing as much harm as possible or trying to do nothing at all.

“Vegans Suck!”

In my short time as vegan, I have found it odd at the gross amount of teasing, anger, hate and vitriol that I see against vegans online and in-person (yes, I have seen vegans do similarly to meat-eaters). In my case however, I am not the kind of vegan that insults you cowardly online nor would I kick a cow muscle burger out of your hands and mouths but I do adhere to rational dialogues. Sadly, I get random and unrequested comments quite often when I am at non-vegan restaurants. I ordered a veggie sub at Subway once and the guy behind me commented, “Man, I can’t do that. I need meat! I’m a carnivore!” I didn’t say anything about his meal nor his ignorance about animal diet categorizations, but he chose to say something about mine. Why? Just the very presence of a vegan incites discomfort, anger and insecure feelings among some meat eaters. It’s odd. Could it be that deep down, they wish to make changes as well? Is it some non-conscious, knee-jerk defense of their carnistic rituals? Admittedly, some vegans are ignorant insecure bastions of pseudoscientific stupidity and some real jerks to boot! However, most vegans, I surmise, are just passionate about animal life and they wish to share that passion, love, and concern to all; much in the same way that most humans are against dog-fighting or child-abuses. I remember sharing my atheism with friends and family thinking they’d actually have rational discussions about the topic. I was horribly naive. Just as many atheists find it difficult to shut-up when they hear really bad scientific and theological arguments, how can a compassionate and caring vegan be silent when they see humans contributing to the needless pain, suffering, torture, and death of innocent beings?

On a Healthier Note

Even though I didn’t start this journey to improve my health. I do in fact sleep better and rest more peacefully. My blood pressure has returned to normal and my cholesterol has lowered. I no longer have GERD and my esophageal H. Pylori has seemed to magically disappear (last test shows that it’s gone). I also seem to have alleviated symptoms generally associated with hypoglycemia (Diabetes tends to run in my family.) Granted, I have picked up my physical activity which could account for some of these positive changes. And yes, eating less meat can also provide many of the same benefits. I’m not a big fan of health arguments, but as some readers may be curious, I included that here as well.

Fin

Well, this is only a few reasons why I became a vegan and why I will most likely stay the course. Thanks for reading. This is a running document and will be updated as newer thoughts come to me.

Extras

Edutainment, Documentaries, and Films I recommend (search youtube): Lucent, Earthlings, Meet Your Meat, Okja, Food Inc, Forks Over Knives. I have found flaws in the docs I listed above; however, I still recommend them as I find them impactful and accurate in crucial areas. Type “vegan” on Amazon and Netflix. Plenty of Free Content. For my scholars and academics, please visit google scholar to research “vegan diet”. I think you will be quite stunned at the latest research. For other casual investigative readers, you may enjoy NutritionFacts.org as well.

Thank you for reading. Can we please do what’s right by our animal cousins? 🙁

“As long as humanity continues to make excuses for harming innocent sentient beings, we will always be an unnecessarily violent species.” – Reginald V. Finley Sr

“Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.” - Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Most Modern Euro-Humans have Caveman DNA

According to my 23andMe results, I have less than 1% Neanderthal DNA. This isn’t really surprising as I share ~20% of my DNA with northern Europeans. Most endogenous Africans don’t have any Neanderthal DNA. Ever since scientists first successfully analyzed most of Neanderthal genome, we have known for some while that those of European descent contain some remnants of Neanderthal DNA. A recent study by Mateja Hajdinjak of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, reveals that there isn’t any immediately detectable evidence that there is gene backflow into modern humans.

Procedure

Hajdinjak’s team recovered samples from four Neanderthal specimens which lived during the time in which scientists believe the swapping of DNA should have occurred based on molecular evidence, between 39,000 and 47,000 years ago. The results revealed no gene flow between these samples and modern humans.

What does this mean?

Not finding human DNA in the Neanderthal genomes screened could mean a few things. One is that over time, those sequences unique to humans simply didn’t get passed down. Another is that the sample itself isn’t complete enough to make a strong determination but this is highly suspect. Another is that it could be that some populations simply don’t obtain the modern human components. It is possible that perhaps only a small number of Neanderthals bred with humans and that members of that surviving lineage made its way into the modern human genome.

In a way, Neanderthals survived through us.

We have recently learned that Cambridge Analytica, and probably many other companies, were data mining Facebook users’ personal information. It was revealed that certain apps were downloaded by users, and friends of those users would have relevant data extracted from them as well. Cambridge Analytica designed an algorithm to not only extract this information, but to apparently parse this information into manageable information that could be then be used to target users via ads and emails. Users would then be led down a carefully constructed maze of fake news, disinformation sites, sites reinforcing their beliefs, sites which create new beliefs in their victims, and sites that attempt to change the minds of fence-sitters.

This technique is not new. Anyone paying attention would have seen similar such attempts by advertisers. I myself created a network of sites 15 years ago in which every link led to another one of my websites and pages. In my site stats, I could see users leaving one site and going to one of my other sites in my network. It’s fairly easy to set up. My goal at the time however was to increase ad revenue, not trick minds with fake news stories.

Christopher Wylie, formerly of Cambridge Analytica, blew the whistle and reported that over 50 million FB users had their information taken with the express goal to lead them down a number of notorious rabbit holes of propaganda and lies. Wylie mentioned on his media tour that Cambridge field tested this, and it worked! The success of the data they compiled and the algorithm used to influence users (their product) is believed to have been later sold through Cambridge Analytica to various external parties. CA apparently helped out Ted Cruz during his campaign but when it was apparent that he was going to lose, CA began working on other data gathering projects for the Trump Campaign.

A Russian Connection?

One individual involved in the creation of the notorious app which pulled user data was a Russian-born professor, Aleksandr Kogan, who was working on projects dealing with how to psychologically profile net users, allegedly funded by Russia. He has been asked to speak to congress about his role. He denies any wrongdoing.

Sometime in March, 2018, the CEO of CA, Alex Nix, was caught on hidden camera boasting about the effectiveness of his operations, in particular, that he helped get Donald Trump elected. Worse, that he essentially entraps certain politicians by showering them with women so that his clients, and possibly CA itself, can have something on them at a later date.

Since this has come up, Trump supporters, thanks to conservative news media outlets, are convinced that this is all a liberal lie and simply another “deep-state” diversion tactic. Sadly, many of these Trump supporters are victims of CA’s efforts! Many of their beliefs about the “deep state”, crooked Hillary, and even President Obama’s birth certificate have come out of these efforts to influence gullible minds.

How Can We Fix This Invasion of Lies and Disinformation?

What is the solution? Well, Facebook has recently banned CA, which is great! But what could have inoculated the public against such obvious fake news and emotional pandering? I argue, Critical Thinking.

Our society is crumbling in its ability to decipher reality. To repair the damage, we must teach our children the ability to question not only everything external to them, but to question themselves as well. It begins with all of us as citizens, educators, and parents. We must allow our children the flexibility to question dogma, while simultaneously giving them tools to discern fact from fiction. As an educator, I see the value daily of having my students question everything, even me. My classroom is one of the rare institutional learning spaces that openly allows the students to question my lessons, statements, and claims. I believe this helps them grow to be more intelligent, critical thinkers. Developing the mindset and courage to question freely helps us all grow; as such, society will eventually evolve into one that is full of citizens with the ability to think and probe more deeply.

Parents: What can you do?

Allow your children to question what you have asked of them or claims that you have made. Teach yourself how to respond adequately. I recommend encouraging and celebrating their out-of-the-box thinking. Sadly, many of us have grown up in authoritarian homes in which being inquisitive was considered, “talking back” and punishable by physical pain. Teach them that there are ways to converse without violence. Teach them that it’s okay to be wrong. Lead by example. Check your own biases. Be honest when you are wrong. And please, please, stop sharing information that you yourself haven’t properly vetted. It is with these actions today that we can begin to see a brighter day tomorrow.

Recommend Resource: Snopes.com (Fact Checking Website Specializing in Debunking Urban Legends and Internet Memes)

We continue to hear from many teachers and politicians that schools need more money. The thought in of itself has become somewhat of a religious ideology moreso than one based on careful arguments and factual evidence. Don’t get me wrong, most, if not all of our public and private schools do indeed need more money to provide the services that they provide. As populations grow, so do schools, we do indeed need to support them. But is money alone the solution? What is the actual goal? To improve the quality of education in America? Or is the goal to just graduate students so that they can go to college or trade school? Certainly it is many things and most are not mutually exclusive; but, if our primary goal is just to graduate students, we have missed the boat entirely and are doing society a disservice.

Money is needed yes, but what do we do with this money? Do we get more supplies, computers, pay for million dollar learning systems that haven’t even proven its efficacy in a real-world environment? Perhaps, but what is more valuable than all of this? Content and curriculum is needed, but I think we should go much further. There are a few major components that I think are missing and they go far beyond just superior content, good lesson plans and curriculum maps.

I suggest three main appendments to our status quo, some may not be able to be quantified or even tested for, but it’s a start.

1.) Finding teachers with a true passion for the subject. - Evaluating one’s passion can prove difficult but I think it imperative to scout for and support teachers that not only have the education which qualifies them to teach the subject, but to additionally hire those teachers that exude a true passion and love for their content (or the classroom). This translates over well to the students and also piques their interest, thus, improving their learning and experiences.

2.) Inculcating and Promoting Critical Thinking in Every Unit - Students should have the freedom to question all things and should be given time and space for this. Every unit should delve into the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the subject or topic at hand. How do you know something? Could this be incorrect? Why is this important to know? How can we discover more? Can we trust this source? Where did these “facts” come from? If teachers aren’t doing something akin to this, I beg to argue that their students aren’t really learning anything of value.

3.) Revise teacher certification and licensing - This is controversial but let me expound on my point. I don’t think being “Highly Qualified” or “Licensed” means anything ultimately. What matters is what impact we are having on future generations. Pearson Group, and others like them, is a business and they market their tools and services to educational organizations, but has anyone stopped to ask, “Is there any evidence that teachers passing Pearson tests move on to be great teachers?” Even county training cannot truly prepare you for the classroom. I know far too many teachers that are highly qualified and licensed and just horrible teachers. Are we doing the right thing by engaging in this testing insanity? I’d say, “Hell No”. It’s possible that we are just putting billions of dollars into companies like Pearson and learning frameworks like Marzano without any evidence that such testing and support systems actually work. I think we need a new standard to assess and assist good and capable teachers, not arbitrary tests and learning fads. There is simply too much testing going on for students and teachers. Many teachers are forced to take tests that in many cases have nothing to do with one’s content area. An Art teacher shouldn’t have to pass general Math, nor should a P.E. teacher have to take some arbitrary essay writing test. They have a degree in their field, they exude the passion, they have been interviewed. Let them teach! Then we wonder why we are short teachers in so many fields. The only one’s benefitting are companies like Pearson, not our students.

I am afraid that if we continue on this uncritical and greed-driven path, that we are failing ourselves and our collective futures. We need a society that encourages rational thought, critical thinking, intellectual honesty, humanism, freethought, scientific thinking, honesty, courage, and the freedom to question. In our schools, we need passionate educators that love their fields and who know how to impart that passion onto others. Teachers passing content knowledge exams and achieving high student test scores will not fix our unsupported biases, our dichotomous political system, our religious and cultural intolerances, our greed, the celebration and perpetuation of violence, the constant “fake news”, nor our gleeful ignorances. To move towards a more enlightened world, we must continue to reach out through civic passion, patience, purposeful listening and understanding, self-reflective honesty, and we must produce truly decent and intelligent citizens for our youth to model. As educators, parents, and concerned citizens, we can begin by placing a foot on the right path by at least modifying our curriculum in all fields to include aspects of what we wish to become. In time, hopefully we can produce a society and a world that is far better off than we are now. We can avert this idiocratic dark age that we are spiraling into. It begins, with you.

• Also posted at: LinkedIn

Wiley Online - A new study sheds light on what we hoped was true about visions of women in science, well mostly. The study shows that a shift has occurred with regard to perceptions of the gender of scientists.

In the 70’s, about 1 in 100 children considered females in science. Now, that has whittled down to 1 and 3. As children age however, those perceptions appear to shift even more toward perceptions of men as scientists.

My Opinion: With regard to the age disparity, societal reflections and personal experiences may be what changes this perception as kid’s shows are not watched by older kids which may feature female and other diverse scientists. I am also curious as to what the data shows about race perceptions of scientists even among schools dominated with minority students. Without any teacher prodding or suggestions, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some reflections of color in the student’s works but there would undoubtedly be more white or equal amount of white scientists illustrated.

We have come a long way in our perceptions of who does science, but the public is still in dire need of understanding and accepting science.

I was recently extended an offer to join the new online education initiative started by Citizens’ High School as an online course developer as well as their Biology and Zoology instructor. Citizens’ High School has been in business since 1981 mostly as a long distance correspondence school. It was recently acquired by the founder of American Public University, Dr. James P. Etter, and will soon begin onlines courses for High School students.

This program can be appealing to homeschooled families as well as independent learners and partnered schools seeking some online enrichment and convenience. The school is accredited by DEAC and is now working toward accreditation with Middle States Commission for regional accreditation.