YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT...

Well except you Ray Kinsella, you did build that. (go ahead google it)  

The truth is, people have lived together, and helping each other in some social manner for as far back as we know. I know this cuz  Nicholas Wade told me in his New York Times article.  According to Wade's research on the hunter-gather era that has dominated our human existence, "tribes with highly cooperative members would prevail over those that were less cohesive, thus promoting genes for cooperation."  I imagine it is pretty difficult to bring down a saber tooth tiger by yourself....it might be a good idea to have some friends and a game plan before you leap into that fight.  

As humans we are  blessed by Darwin with the ability to speak and develop complex languages which we use to communicate ideas with one another, allowing for an expansion of knowledge and ability.  A group allows the opportunity for many to act as one in accomplish various objectives efficiently and cohesively, bringing the group closer to its long term goals.  

In a report for Sciencemag.org written by Anita W. Woolley titled "Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups", Woolley conducted a study about individuals working together in groups, and from her findings makes the case that the "collective intelligence", or "c", of a group is not based around the individual intelligence of the members, but rather the groups social dynamics and interpersonal communication abilities. More specifically she states "there was a significant correlation between "c" and the average social sensitivity of group members". Here I interpret social sensitivity to mean degrees of empathy.  Moreover, she states "c was negatively correlated with the variance in the number of speaking turns by group members" such that "groups where a few people dominated the conversation were less collectively intelligent than those with a more equal distribution of conversational turn-taking."  

Woolley's research report also got quite the attention buzz with it's last finding that collective intelligence "was positively and significantly correlated with the proportion of females in the group".  I feel the same rule goes for parties- you always want there to be a higher girl to guy ratio. But really I agree with Woolley's findings, women do tend to be more socially sensitive than men, I don't know about being more social, but definitely more socially sensitive.  Idk why this seems to be, it might be cultural, it might be something to do with the differences of brain function between men and women.  As a man I could say that this is some bullshit research based on some subjective ass questions conducted by a woman for women and the only results need be known on the issue can be researched every Sunday while watching the NFL- but I wont't because that would sound ignorant.  Some might even think that I'm some kind of caveman.  But to be fair to cavemen, without them first, we wouldn't be now.    

Here comes Fatty Doo Doo

If South Park is making fun of it, then you know its relevant.  The latest episode "Raising the Bar" was about how Americans have really lowered their standards for what is culturally acceptable.  Cartman gains a few pounds so he is counted as obese and gets to ride in one of those jolly-persons scooters and children anomalies like Alana aka Honey Boo Boo who get serious attention and a tv show? for being ridiculous.  And though they do make it fun to laugh at Cartman on a fat scooter, there is a serious issue being brought up...theres a bunch of fat kids running around, well i guess more slowly walking than running.  And lemme be clear, I'm talking about the young ones, like elementary school-ers blossoming in middle school-ers like gigantic sunflowers in the summer--they be growing big.  But surely the blame cannot be placed solely on these future big-and-talls.  Due to the way a majority of the food is produced in this beautiful country, that is corporately owned and industrialized to maximize profits, and the public school system is run, by a set and shrinking budget, buying nutritious and organic food usually gets cuts from the plan.  As a result the kids are not eating the most nutritious of food for their breakfast and lunches.  You may ask, why can't parents pack their kids lunches? Some people can't afford to, and they can't afford to or may not have the time to cook for their children at all and as a result their children grow up eating unhealthy at home.  All of this equates to a generation that has developed an almost systematic lifestyle that is unsustainable in all senses of the word, both individually as well as nationally. Anyways, this is the wicked,-boston not related-problem my Environmental Communications group and I are working on-- thinking about how to create a movement towards sustainable food, in terms of nutrition and diet as well as the way in which it is farmed.  Luckily we have the First Lady Michelle Obama on our side.

What's supply without demand

In her article "Contextualizing Boycotts and Buycotts: The Impure Politics of Consumer-Based Advocacy in an Age of Global Ecological Crises", Phaedra C. Pezzullo assumes that the political system that is, is corrupt, or as she puts it, "impure".   It is all very Noam Chomsky sounding, the reasoning behind her assumption.  But it is interesting what she does with the mindset, which is, she makes the case that there should be more attention placed in analyzing "boycotts and buycott campaigns as a significant communication practice offering varying economic and cultural critiques", more specifically, how "the efficacy of boycotts and buycotts, then, pivots on how advocates identify, frame, and resist specific relations" (128). This involves being specific about the focal points of the campaign, which may help clarify the power relations in the struggle between the stakeholders.

For working definition, Pezzullo clarifies "boycotts and buycotts share many characteristics, though they do differ. A boycott campaign is a concerted refusal to spend money* as well as to convince others to refuse to spend money*on a product or service in the hopes of changing specific condition(s) or practice(s) of an institution. In contrast, a buycott or procott or girlcott campaign is a concerted effort to make a point of spending money* as well as to convince others to make a point of spending money*on a product or service in the hopes of affirming specific condition(s) or practice(s) of an institution. Both involve nonviolent collective critique constituted by communicative acts that are verbal (e.g., press releases and chants at protests) and nonverbal (e.g., marches and spending or not spending money on a specific commodity or
service)" (125).

After reading her article, I have decided boycotts and buycotts are like the opposite sides of the same coin. By boycotting one company, you are effectively placing your money into the companies of substitute goods.  By buycotting a company, you are diverting your money to a specific company away from other options.  They both seek to reform bad qualities by reaffirming good qualities, at least what is perceived as "good" and "bad".  For example, after the BP oil spill, BP looked pretty bad in the eyes of the American people, and their PR team didn't do a very good job at swaying that perception, they still looked like environmentally hazardous and still contained the fragrance of some big-oil-assholes.  According to a Bloomberg article, BP's profits fell after the incident, like a big 66% drop.  American people were boycotting the British company, opting for Exxon and Shell both of which saw an increase of profit in regards to BP's fall.  This isn't a buycott because it isn't like Exxon has better business practices that need reaffirming, rather they were perceived as not being as bad as BP and thus more deserving of the dollar.  Buycotts are a bit more complicated because it is not as common of a term, but as Pezzullo states "a buycott is promoted as a necessary step during impure politics" (136).  Boycotts are not as effective as the campaigns seem to only attract a target group of users, and in some cases there is even backlash against the boycott, check Chick-Fil-A. Money speaks and everybody wants to listen.  As a society and a culture we vote with our dollar on a company with proper business ethics or a good product or service, it would then seem economically beneficial for a company to then work hard to having a good product and business practices such that consumers will buy the company's product or service based upon their liking of the company.  It seems to me that there would be a lot of PR influence going on with a buycott campaign and perhaps maybe even branding manipulation,  but that is all part of the "impure" free-market.  It's easier to be recognized being the book cover than it is to being the pages.

This is why we can't have nice things

Imagine with me- it's day seven of your ten day tour in the middle of the South African bush, and the sun is beating down on you like a motherfucker.  And it's pretty exhausting to say the least. Youre fatigued but still focused.  Sitting there in the Land Rover, staring out into the distance with your Kowa Genesis XD binoculars, you see what you've been waiting for, and it is magnificent.  A beautiful, majestic full-grown giraffe running, out in the distance, about 500 meters away. You watch God's happy little creature for a while, you observe it eating leaves off the high branches, you look at it's long legs the way it runs with backwards knees and you think to yourself 'that's kinda interesting'.  Then, you pull out your Remmington 700 and shoot the fucker through the scope.  BAM!! One shot straight through the sarcophagus and it goes down.  You're guide and driver, Baruti, drives you to the warm carcass before the hyenas can get to it.  This is the moment you paid for, the one you've been waiting for.  You hop out the truck, hand your Canon 5D Mark II to Baruti, and stand next to your kill.  With a big grin painted across your face, you shout "This is gonna be one hell of a picture!"

Photographer David Chancellor took a series of photos titled Hunters, idk the technical terms of description, but its basically about different families that go to Africa for vacation with the intention of killing some big animal, and the photos are of after the hunt, and its shocking to see some of these people holding in their hands a dead animal.  He talks about the controversial activity here in this WIRED article. 

According to the article: big-game hunting in South Africa alone, "brings in about 157 million USD a year".   But in Kenya, where this killing big animals for sport is banned,  "the safari industry rakes in about 800 million USD a year".  So I did some math and it looks like keeping your animals alive and protecting the environment in which they inhabit is pretty economical.  And more commercial.  A lot of profit could be made.  People like seeing wild animals, especially when these wild animals are alive, and if they live for a while, then more people can potentially see them and go home with a good experience, then they tell their friends, their friends go visit the country to see the wild animals, you know living.  This brings more tourism dollars to the country, gives the country incentive to protect the wildlife, the circle of life continues for another day in Africa.

Ive been to Africa and seen the animals, the giraffe, the zebra, the buffalo, the hippo, the lion, the cheetah, and the elephant, and its all a very humbling and wonderful experience. I think big-game hunting is insanely messed up, and really unfair to the animals.  I mean what is the killing for really? It's not for food, it's purely so one person can feel big on the inside and have a photo to show at the dinner party which is probably chowing down on either hot dogs or something crazy exotic like sea turtle stew. And I guess even whole families are doing it now,  like some sort of sophisticated-redneck family event.  Like Disneyland isn't exciting enough anymore, the kids have to go kill lions. I think a rule of fairness should be put into play when it comes to hunting for fun: you are only allowed to use weapon ideas from before 500 a.d. this includes knives, spears, sticks, but nothing nearly sophisticated like guns.  I would say the crossbow is just out of allowable weapons.   "Man with spear" fights rhino- I think that would be a fair animal-to-animal match.