E-Reader vs Paper

I have long been a fan of things technological. Gadgets and gizmos are so interesting! They can do so many neat things! I was online when BBs were where you went online, and URLs were a strange and foreign language. I remember when LJ was the newest, neatest thing and AOL communities were exploding with activity. I remember GEnie and the oh-so-convenient and never suitable replicated Aladdin made signing on affordable...if you kept it to once or twice a day!

I remember when 2400 baud rate modems were fast, and a 286 computer was had for the reasonable price of about $1000. It was, after all, the very first loan I ever got. DOS based programs were the only ones around. Anyone else remember Eight-in-One?

 I'm the kid who stopped eating lunch in junior high so she could save her money to buy books. The library just wasn't good enough - they'd have a book at the beginning of a series, or the middle, but not the rest. I'm the one who took pride in winning a gift certificate from the school at the end of the year for reading the most books during the school year.

So you'd think I'd be in the front ranks of people mad over e-readers. How much better could it get? It's a gadget. It's a book. It fits in your pocket. You can download books directly to it! It seems perfect. It seems a dream come true.

Except there's one problem: if you live on a budget, it places a temptation you can't afford right where you can't avoid it, unless you're smart enough, strong enough, resistant enough to NOT BUY AN E-READER. And you explain to everyone who knows you and wonders why you haven't gotten one yet, WHY you have gotten it yet.

And then they go and give it all sorts of new and fascinating features, like Internet and Netflix. Oh, whimper. Resistance is hard!!

But when someone decides to give you a Kindle for Christmas (and not the ultra-neat Kindle Fire with all the bells and whistles, but the bare-basic base model Kindle that you can ONLY read on, in black and white, without even the back-lighting on the screen) avoiding temptation becomes much, much harder.

Until...

Until you go shopping on Amazon and check out those Kindle Book prices. Because I'm a curious woman, I compare them to the paperback prices. Now, is it me, or does it seem just WRONG that an e-book would cost the same as the paper book? I mean...less materials used in production, so why the same price? It makes no sense! It's a rip off! A crime! An outrage!

If I'm paying the same price, I'm gonna get the most of my money. Give me that paperback book. Let me post-it the pages I like. Let me admire the cover art. Let me caress that glossy, slick paper that surrounds that rougher, ink-smelling stack. Give me something corporeal. A paperback book fits in my back pocket, too.

Watch the dust...

Oh, my! I forgot I had this blog! Bit dusty in here, isn't it? Since I've cancelled my LiveJournal account, I suppose I should start blogging here. So, um, stay turned! :)

Mythology

Lately I've been reading the Percy Jackson series by Rick Riordan. It's quite entertaining, and a great series for pre-teens and early teens. It has action, adventure, and a healthy dose of mythology. Enough to spark curiosity and tempt youngsters down the path of more classical reading.

I've always had a passing interest in mythology. Enough to think, "I want to learn more," but not enough to actually devote myself to learning more. I think I really want to, though. The problem is: how? Where do you start? There are so many books out there, but most of them assume that a Mythology 101 course has been completed. Mythology isn't like a television series, where you can start watching it in season four and by the end of that season, pretty much know the storyline and how everything relates. At least, not in my linear mind!

I like timelines. I like starting with the first book in the series. I like knowing the background. I like 'this leads to this, then led to that, then leads to this...' Tell me the story in order so I can follow it.

Mythology, however, doesn't really care about time. Mythology is a long, convoluted, complex story that explained the world to folks who didn't have the means of understanding it any other way. But don't you wonder, sometimes, if there's more to it than that? What if those gods did exist? Who's to say they didn't? Surely even all those thousands of years ago people needed more proof of godly existence than the fact that grapes grew and the sun rose?

And why did belief in these old gods and goddesses started to fade to nothing? No one hears of anyone worshiping Zeus or Poseidon anymore. Aphrodite has no follows; Apollo no brides. What happened to them?

Everyone knows the name of Hercules. They know he's the son of Zeus and a mortal woman. But what were his labors? What are his stories? I don't know them. I think I should.

Who is Perseus? Theseus? Jason? The Hesperides? Atlas, Kronos, Oceanus? The other Titans? Where did they come from, and where did they go?

And now I'm reminded of a song, one of my favorites, although it always makes me sad:

"Last Mourner"
written and performed by Heather Alexander

In a clearing stands the ruins and remains of a temple
That once stood as proud as the sky.
On the wind blows the bittersweet sound of lost love.
On my gown flow the tears that I cry.

Through ages you waited for your children to come home,
And frolic again, as long ago.
But with time and with distance there comes independence,
Whereas you did not conceive that we would grow.

No more will we drink the sacramental wine.
No more will we light the sacred fires.
For ye only I am the last who shall mourn you,
And the loss of the music lyre.

My spirit rode forward on the wings of love and glory,
But duty rent the passion from me.
Tis true I betrayed you, and my own heart with you.
But my kind could not bow down; we must live free.

No more will we sacrifice the land to you.
No more will we gather laurel leaves.
For ye only I am the last who shall mourn you,
And forever the one I will grieve.

In a clearing stands the ruins and remains of a temple
That once stood as proud as the sky.
On the wind blows the bittersweet sound of Mount Olympus,
And the gods who taught the human soul to fly.

Silenced Howls Singing: The Fall and Rise of the Wolf

Anna Smith
Mr. Steve Estus
English 101, 4:00pm M W
5 May 2008

Silenced Howls Singing: The Fall and Rise of the Wolf

Wolves have traditionally been sources of terror and admiration. Which view one took depended upon the culture in which one was raised. Old myths and legends had wolves as servants of evil, or of good. Current popular culture generally continues this trend, just adding romance into the mix. Beneath the myths, legends and fictional fads, however, are the simple facts of the animals themselves. Wolves are not good. Wolves are not evil. Wolves are animals developed over millennia of evolution and adaptation, acting as nature and pack training has taught them. They are frequently misunderstood and anthropomorphized by the ignorant. Their role in maintaining a healthy ecological balance is undervalued, just as their threat to humans and livestock is over-emphasized. The reaction of ranchers and hunters to the re-introduction of wolves to the United States, and their recent delisting from the Endangered Species list, is worrisome. While wolf-song can be heard in the night again, one must wonder how long it will continue.

The enmity between wolves and humans is a long standing one, but not a universal one. Wolves had a bad reputation among Europeans long before Columbus ever set foot in the Americas. By the 1800s, wolves were gone from England. Colonists brought their preconceived prejudices towards wolves with them when they settled North America. Wolves were threats, slavering beasts intent on murder and mayhem, and to be killed on sight. (Jones) The fear and loathing of the Europeans conflicted strongly with the Native American respect and admiration of wolves. Like the Native Americans, wolves suffered badly from this intolerance. Colonists used the excuse of livestock predations to justify killing wolves wholesale, but the truth was that attacks were far less than reported. In the map below is the territory that wolves have historically been native to in North America. The green areas are those areas where wolves could still be found.

Prior to European settlement of North America, the indigenous people maintained a healthy balance with the wildlife around them. According to Karen Jones in her “Fighting Outlaws, Returning Wolves” article from History Today, “an older, indigenous tradition in the Yellowstone region encapsulated a more favorable perception… Casting the wolf as an influential spirit and a cherished social guide… Illustrious lupines assumed pivotal roles in the sacred stories of myriad tribes.” (38) With colonization, however, the balance was upset and the predators became prey to humans. The relationship between humans and wolves has remained one of animosity for hundreds of years, and as a result the wolf population has been dangerously decimated. Only now are their numbers once more rising.

People have a tendency to anthropomorphize wolves, as it demonstrated in the many myths, legends, and modern literature available. Assigning human characteristics to wild animals is unwise and potentially dangerous. Wolves are not human and they do not think or rationalize as humans do. They cannot be held to human standards. Wolves act according to two rules: the instincts with which they are born, and the patterns of behavior they learn as pups. They are predators and their actions are those of predators. While wolves are very intelligent animals, they are still simply animals. Yet this tendency to expect human logic out of them may be the root source of the long-standing conflict between humans and wolves. In historic times, people assigned good or evil intent to wolves and used that reasoning to justify slaughtering them.

While wolves have long been hunted in European countries, in North America they existed in relative peace with the native peoples. Native Americans admired the wolf, and perceived the animal as a kindred spirit. This attitude was unique in the world, but representative of the symbiotic relationship and religion that most of America’s indigenous people had with the natural world. Unfortunately, the numbers of European settlers quickly outstripped the native population and the persecution of the wolf that they brought with them carried over. The wolf population, widely spread through the United States, quickly diminished until they were only found in a few locations. By 1926 even remote Yellowstone had lost the last of their wolves. When the Endangered Species Act became law in 1973 there were only two areas that could still claim a wolfish presence: northern Michigan and Minnesota. (“United States: Fair Game Now; Wolves”)

Wolves have made an amazing comeback from their near-extinction in the United States. Their numbers have increased quickly since their reintroduction back into the wild in Yellowstone National Park. Unfortunately, their numbers will never be allowed to return to the level they once were. Humans have claimed too much territory and the fears of ranchers must be appeased. There is now a debate whether the currently mandated minimal numbers are even sufficient to ensure genetic stability. The graph below shows the increase in the wolf population since efforts to return them to the wild began in 1995. It’s not nearly the 350,000 that roamed North America when Lewis and Clark were taking their walkabout, nor will it ever be again, but there is once more wolf-song echoing to the rising moon. (“Cull of the Wolf”) The data for the graph below was collected from Jim Zumbo’s article “A Howling in the West: Not Everyone is Thrilled About Recovering Wolf Populations,” published by Outdoor Life in their December 2003 / January 2004 issue.

The reintroduction of wolves has been a hotly debated issue since they were first included on the Endangered Species list. Conservationists have squared off with ranchers and hunters from the beginning, and seldom do the two groups see eye to eye. Conservationists fear, with some justification, that wolves will never be safe from persecution. Ranchers and hunters hotly contest the wisdom of returning wolves to their natural habitat. More than one hunter had lain in wait of a wandering wolf, and their sole intent was to simply kill it. As the time drew near for wolves to be removed from the Endangered Species list, the federal government waited for the three states to provide plans for monitoring and controlling the wolf population. Once removed from federal protection, the state run agencies would be responsible for overseeing the protection of the wolves, and the people, within the borders. The states in question are Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. While Idaho and Wyoming have presented accepted plans for handling the return of the wolf, Montana’s plan is still undergoing review. One thing all three plans have in common: wolves will be hunted as trophy animals. Some states, such as Montana, are waiting until after the wolves a delisted as endangered species before creating the regulations for hunting them. (Zumbo.) That period of time between the delisting and the posting of the regulations will be a very dangerous window for wolves – and a free-for-all party for wolf hunters.

To fully understand the conflict between wolf and rancher, one must understand the hunting behavior of wolves. According to the study conducted by MacNulty, Mech, and Smith published in the Journal of Mammology, wolves display several stages of predatory behavior. Initially there is the search phase, during which time wolves are looking for prey. This is followed by the approach phase, in which the distance between the wolf or wolf-pack and the prey is reduced. Depending on the chosen prey, the approach phase would be followed by the watching phase. In this study, the two types of prey observed were elk and bison. Wolves tended to watch bison more than elk and the assumption is because bison are more aggressive than elk. The approach and watching phases are then followed by the pursuit and/or harassing phases, which are interchangeable. Pursuit is for when the prey makes a run for it. Harassment would replace pursuit when the prey confronts the hunting wolves. The final phase is capture, and the wolves dine well. Wolves generally try to choose isolated members of a herd as their prey as a single elk or bison is less threat than a group of elk or bison. The weaker the prey the easier the hunt will be, and the greater the likelihood that the pack will be fed.

Hunting behaviors indicate some intelligent, logical processes. The pattern of attack is modified according to the prey chosen. Elk was the preferred large-game prey, and less dangerous than bison. Wolves tended to pursue and harass elk, whereas they seldom harass bison. Wolves also spent more time watching bison prior to pursuing, and would often opt not to pursue bison. (MacNulty, Mech, and Smith) This ability to evaluate the risk potential in hunting and deciding to forego the immediately available prey indicates some level of intelligence. However, it does not indicate human intelligence, human understanding of right and wrong, or a human sense of ownership. A herd of cattle in a field is nothing more than easy prey to a wolf. They are much easier, certainly, than the aggressive bison or the wary elk.

Wolves prey on a wide range of animals. Mice fill the belly as well as elk, and a rabbit is always a potential meal. They hunt what is available, and there’s no real reason they should view a cow or ewe any differently than they do the rabbit or deer. Wolves do not hunt for sport. They hunt because they’re hungry. Whatever they happen across first that falls within their definition of prey is what they will hunt, given that the risk potential is within their capabilities. A single wolf will not hunt a bison and a pack of wolves will not hunt rabbits.

It’s true that a wolf will go after easy prey. It’s not a stupid animal, after all, and easy prey means less risk of injury and a greater likelihood of having a meal. A wolf’s hunting instincts are also roused when something runs from it. Wolves are also territorial, and encroachment on their territory sparks a fight response. So when humans came around and started settling in territories that supported packs, is it any wonder that wolves hunted the docile cattle they found? Or that domesticated animals like dogs were attacked and killed? To a wolf, a dog is a threat to be eliminated.

Perhaps the intelligence demonstrated in their hunting tactics, combined with the brutality of their kills, is the reason why so many cultures have assigned evil connotations to wolves. A wolf-kill is not a pleasant way to die. It’s bloody and vicious and without mercy. Wolves will often begin feeding on their prey before it is dead. They do not kill cleanly, as some animals do. When hunting large game, wolves will work as a team to attack their chosen prey, causing severe bodily harm. Eventually injury or sheer blood loss will cause the victim to fall. (Zumbo.) One can easily be excused for assuming evil intent when faced with these end results.

The heart of the debate regarding wolves can be found in the Midwest, where ranching is most prevalent. The livelihood of ranchers depends on the survival of their stock. However, it is not only ranchers who are against the survival of one of North America’s most effective natural predators. Hunters also protest the return of the wolf, but their reason has less logic than that of the ranchers. While the ranchers want to protect their livelihood from predation, the hunters simply want to ensure that they are allowed to bag more large game during their hunting trips than they would be allowed if wolves returned. The more elk and bison killed by wolves the fewer there are for sport hunters to kill during the hunting season.

Hunters are being greedy. While their kills will only result in them taking the meat home for their personal freezers, a wolf kill supports a vast ecological system. The remains left after a successful wolf hunt feed myriad carrion animals, strengthening the ecosystem. (Ewers) While a hunter’s gun does not discriminate when choosing a target, a wolf’s hunting practice manages to weed out the weakest or oldest members of a herd, allowing the remaining members to pass on their genes to the next generation, strengthening the herd’s overall health and vitality. (Ferguson).

Ranchers argue that wolves will kill livestock. Sure they will. Just like humans will go to grocery stores to buy their vegetables instead of investing a lot of time and effort in maintain their own vegetable gardens. Livestock, in general, is docile. They are accustomed to humans and to protection. They are, quite simply, easy pickings. If a wolf is faced with a choice of running down that dangerous bison or going for that fatted steer, the wolf will certainly choose the least dangerous option. However, there are protections that can be put in place. Foremost is one of the oldest professions around: herding. Stick a man or two with the herds instead of letting them wander unsupervised, add a few cattle dogs, and much of the risk is reduced. Unless a wolf is accustomed to human presence, quick response from the dogs’ alert and an aggressive response from a human or two will general be enough to deter a wolf and send him hunting other prey. Ranchers, however, seem disinclined to pursue this option.

Considering the length of time that wolves have been absent from the ranchlands of the west, the fears expressed by the ranchers have very little basis in fact. How do they know that wolves will give up moose, elk, and bison as their food supply in favor of sheep and cattle? There’s no historical data to back that up. There can’t be – wolves were hunted from the outset with the intent to eradicate them. According to Ed Bangs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “One of the first tasks given in the 1910s to my agency was to kill the last wolves in the Western United States. … The last pups were killed in 1924.” (Ewers.) This was at a time when the west was still being settled.

The risk of wolf predations on livestock is greatly exaggerated. As the information below, compiled from Todd Wilkinson’s article, “Montana’s Wolf Reality Doesn’t Bite” in the Missoula Independent, wolves are not the greatest threat to livestock kills. Coyotes are a larger danger, and yet one does not hear cries of genocide on those creatures. Even domestic dogs kill more livestock than wolves do.

Decades of argument have proven that there is no happy medium between the conservationists and the ranchers. One group has romanticized the wolf. The other group and vilified it. The wolf has done nothing but simply adhered to its nature. A wolf doesn’t recognize boundaries. A wolf doesn’t respect fences. A wolf doesn’t see a brand. Can it be blamed for wandering outside the established safe-zone boundaries established? Can it be blamed for not recognizing a fence? Can it be blamed for seeing a prey animal and feeling hunger? Wolves are intelligent animals, but animals nonetheless. Time will tell whether we have successfully saved an animal that, less than a century ago, we were intent on exterminating. In the end, wolves have as much right to life as humans do, and that right should be protected.

Works Cited

"United States: Fair Game Now; Wolves." The Economist [London, England.] 29 Mar. 2008,62
Apr. 2008,8. The Economist. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 23 April
2008
"Cull of the wolf. " The Christian Science Monitor [Boston, Mass.] 2 Apr. 2008,8. Christian
Science Monitor. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008

Ewers, Justin. "The Remarkable, Resilient Wolf. " U.S. News & World Report 17 Mar. 2008:
19. Research Library Core. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May.
2008
Ferguson, Gary. "The big bad wolf; In the Rockies, man's hatred and fear of the species is on
display again. " Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles, Calif.] 30 Apr. 2008,A.19. Los Angeles
Times. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008

Jones, Karen. "Fighting outlaws, returning wolves. " History Today 52.3 (2002): 38-40.
Research Library Core. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008

MacNulty, Daniel R; Mech, L David; Smith, Douglas W. "A Proposed Ethogram of Large-
Carnivore Predatory Behavior, Exemplified by the Wolf.” Journal of Mammalogy
88.3 (2007): 595-605. Research Library Core. ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library,
San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008
Wilkinson, Todd. "Montana's wolf reality doesn't bite. " Missoula Independent [Missoula,
Mont.] 20 Mar. 2008,17. Alt-Press Watch (APW). ProQuest. Milo P. Johnson Library, San
Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008
Zumbo, Jim. "A Howling In The West: Not Everyone Is Thrilled About Recovering Wolf
Populations .” Outdoor Life 1 Dec. 2003: 70-74. General Interest Module. ProQuest. Milo
P. Johnson Library, San Jacinto, CA. 7 May. 2008

Take me to Narnia....

When I was fourteen, my dad retired from the Air Force. We left the place I knew as home, where I had friends and I knew the town. We left the security and safety of the military base and we moved...

...to Arkansas. A small town, and definitely not one that felt the same as a military base.

Within the first week of attending my new school, I had been asked if I were pregnant, and then if I were a teacher. These were not exactly strong indicators that I would make friends quickly, or easily, and I certainly didn't.

Life changed for all of us when we moved from Louisana to Arkansas. We each dealt with it in our own ways. I escaped into books. I was embarassed and ashamed, and I felt completely out of my element. Other students didn't make any overtures of friendship, and I was both too shy and too introverted to make the overtures myself.

It was at this time that I discovered Narnia. It was my introduction to fantasy, but it also taught me a lot, much of which I didn't realize until many years later. I immediately drew the parallels between Aslan and Christianity. It was fairly obvious, and this was long before I learned that CS Lewis was a well known author of religious books, and had suffered through his own crisis of faith at some point. He was, obviously, a man who'd given deep thought to religion.

At the time, all I really knew was that Narnia, for all it's problems, seemed like paradise and I would have given anything to go there. I would lay in bed at night, lonely and miserable, crying, and pray that Aslan would come and take me to Narnia. My sisters and I, you see, were long past the age of being playmates and so I didn't even have them for company. My only friends were those that I met in books.

Now with the movies coming out, I remember how important these books were to me. I remember the lessons they taught me, and how I learned to deal with life by reading those pages. I learned joy and wonder, hope and grief. I learned that everything comes to an end - but that end is in itself a new beginning. I learned that there is such a thing as unconditional love, but love doesn't mean that a blind eye is turned to faults and wrong.

The first movie was pretty close to the book. It's been too long since I've read the books to know how close this second one is...but it's probably just as close as the first. :-)

Narnia taught me hope. It taught me acceptance of those different from myself, and it taught me that a different culture has as much value and 'right' as the culture I grew up in. It taught me doing what's right, even when it hurts, and defending those who need it. It taught me that fighting wasn't the only way to defend. It taught me that appearance doesn't necessarily mean anything, and that even the smallest creature - or person - has important skills and abilities.

Narnia taught me many lessons. And today, as I contemplate life as it is, it seems to me that many of those lessons are today thought to be weaknesses. How sad is that? And does that explain why I find myself often unhappy or frustrated in life?

Nineteen years later....I still want to go to Narnia.

A Cat's Launching Pad

For the past year, my bed has been an air mattress. I like it that way. I can make the bed as firm or as soft as I like. Sometimes I want the cloud-soft cozy, and sometimes I want it firm. Air mattresses as beds are ideal for suiting every sleeping mood. And it worked very, very well for me for nine months.

Then...well, one of the air chamber dividers gave out and I had a lopsided bed. But that wasn't so bad. I even sorta liked it. It was like an built in body pillow.

However, shortly afterwards, I noticed that the bed tended to get just a bit softer overnight. I started having to add air to it every other day or so. Then every day. Then every night right before I went to bed. Obviously, the thing had sprung a leak, and I just couldn't find where. It puzzled me, and it annoyed me because I knew I'd have to replace it. I didn't want to do that. I knew I wouldn't able to find one just like it that I could afford, especially if it wasn't going to last a year. But I did it. I found another air mattress, not quite as good because it didn't air up quite as tall, but otherwise just as comfy to sleep in. I've had it for about...a month.

Well, I ain't got it anymore. I have discovered the leak. Air mattresses are not to be used as cat launching or landing pads.

See, yesterday I went out to do laundry. No big deal. I do it once every two weeks. When it's only your clothes to clean, you don't have to go often, you know. I came home and started to put the clothes away, but delayed making up the bed. I'm going to try my hand at skiing next weekend, so I needed to hit the schoolbooks hard. However, I did notice the bed was a little soft, so I aired it up some. Hours later, when I was ready for bed, I went in to make it up and noticed the bed was too soft AGAIN. By now I'm a wee bit irked. I didn't want to deal with another leak. I looked around, passed my hand and arm slowly around the sides of the bed to see if I felt any air movement, and couldn't find anything. So I aired the bugger up again, made it up, and went to bed.

And heard, 'hissssssssssss.'

The puncture was at the top of the bed. By my ear. This time I found it no problem. A nice little slit and I knew exactly what had caused it: Idiot and Murmur jumping from the bed to the windowsill, or from the windowsill to the bed, had caught a claw.

Well, I'm rather the make-do sort so I figured I'd do a quick repair. Some tape over the hole should seal it, right? Right! But since the top is kinda veloury, it might not take a good hold. So I put more top over the first, crossing over the top. Then more on top of that, making an X over the + I'd already done. Good and sealed! I refreshed the air, straightened the bed, turned out the light, and went to sleep at about 11:45pm.

At 1:30 am, I woke up on the floor.

The tape wasn't a good seal, after all. But Murmur, oh, he were quite happy with the situation since HE was still sleeping on part of the mattress that still had air.

Now, mind you, my alarm is set to go off at 4am on Mondays and Wednesdays. I was tired. There was no way I could fix the bed, so I grabbed a blanket, wrapped it around me, and plopped down on the lay-out fouton in the living room. Idiot had already claimed half of it for his bed, and there was no way he was willing to give it up. Or share the cozier blanket. Apparently, when I go to bed at night, I forfeit all right to my couch or my blanket and I must make do with whatever's leftover. The damn cat just wouldn't budge!

I didn't get much sleep after that, just feel into a light doze. The bed is still flattened in my room, and Murmur was still cozily sleeping on it when I left this morning. I won't be home til late tonight since I have class, but first them I'm doing is making that fouton into a bed. A comfortable bed. It'll have to be used as one for a while because I'm not buying another air mattress for the boys to play pin cushion with.

And their punishment? No access to the windowsill in the bedroom. :-) It's too high for even THEM to jump to without their launching pad!

::yawn!::

The Economics of Weight Loss

It's odd what concepts one encounters in various subjects can be seen as applicable in unrelated fields. Take economics and weight loss.

I don't know about other people, but when I go out to eat I tend to eat everything that I order. I know if I take it home, it won't taste as good, or I'll end up throwing it away. But, I've already spent the money and since I don't want to get full value for my money, I make sure I eat what I've paid for, regardless if I'm full halfway through the meal.

Economist would say that I'm ignoring sunk costs.

A sunk cost is a cost incurred in the past that cannot be changed by current decisions and therefore cannot be recovered. In this instance, the sunk cost is the price of the meal. Whether I eat the full meal or not, the cost is gone and I won't get it back. So, should I let this irrevocable action determine the decisions I make in the present?

I can eat the complete meal when I'm already full and it will cost me no less. I can choose not to eat the full meal, and it will cost me no less. In monetary terms.

However, economics looks are more that just money. It factors in opportunity cost. For instance, if I don't eat the full meal, what does it cost me? Perhaps dissatisfaction that I did not get my perceived full money value for the food. Therefore, my opportunity cost of eating half the meal could be equated to, say, $5-$8.

However, if I do eat the full meal when I'm no longer hungry, what is my opportunity cost? It would be discomfort from being over-full; additional calories, fat, carbs, sugar, etc.; gained weight; guilt for eating when I know I shouldn't have; increased health risks (via a cumulative effect); and the list can go on.

Economists recommend that people ignore sunk costs. It's over, it's done, it can't be undone. Do not let it affect the decisions you make now. Seen in this light, it seems clear what your decision should be when it comes to polishing off that meal, even though you're not hungry: don't do it. The opportunity cost of cleaning your plate is too high.

So next time you go out to eat and your order is placed before you, don't say to yourself, "I have to eat everything. I paid for it. I need to get my full value." Your full value will be reached when you hit equilibrium: your hunger is gone and you've enjoyed the meal. If you keep eating past that point, you're losing value because you're no longer 'satisfied.' You're overfull, courting health problems, and feeling slightly ill.

So remember! Don't let the price of the meal determine how much of it you eat! I, at least, will try to keep that in mind.