data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/06418/0641820711e4d609cc6de1db79f7801b69074b34" alt=""
If you are so inclined, you can also check out the artist's art projects (something that I feel is more of a cheap-and-easy way to make money).
WITH the depletion of bluefin tuna in our oceans now front-page news, people around the country have been sharing with me their confusions and fears about eating sushi. I think that we — and our fish — would benefit from a new deal for American sushi: a grand pact between chefs and customers to change the way we eat.
Lobbyists for the sushi and fishing industries insist that tuna is essential to sushi, and that controls on harvesting the fish would threaten traditional Japanese culture. But that’s nonsense. ...
...
[T]he dirty little secret of American sushi is that from the beginning, many Japanese chefs assumed that we could never appreciate the wide-ranging experience the way their Japanese customers did, so they didn’t bother to educate us. Simple sushi took over, featuring the usual suspects: tuna, salmon, boiled shrimp....
What we need isn’t more tuna, but a renaissance in American sushi; to discover for ourselves — and perhaps to remind the Japanese — what sushi is all about. A trip to the neighborhood sushi bar should be a social exchange that celebrates, with a sense of balance and moderation, the wondrous variety of the sea.
...One interesting thing that I have always considered, having grown up and traveled all over the world, was the lengths to which religious scientists go to scientifically prove the fundamental truths of their own religion. Since religion-based research bases its starting premises on articles of faith, the questions being asked may seem ludicrous, nonsensical, or meaningless to one that is “outside” that faith.
For example, would the average American scientist (who is heavily seated in a Christian social landscape) take seriously the work done in
1) Are sacred religious beliefs (of any religion) and mundane/material scientific understandings (of any branch of science) philosophically compatible?
2) Are scientists who pursue scientific research on doctrines of faith doing a service or disservice to others of their religion (since a scientific discovery disproving a religious certainty could not easily be met with objectivity)?
Based on my own understanding of the accuracy of scriveners in ancient times (poor); the great temptation of using turning translation to ideological ends (high); and the changing meaning of words through time (high), I wonder how scientifically useful it is to try and use any holy book as a reliable scientific compass against which to set future research goals. Similarly, I wonder how religiously valid the contention that any branch of science can fulfill the role of religion in humans while still remaining philosophically true to its scientific basis.
I could go on to discuss the different understandings of the material (mundane) world espoused by different branches of science, but that would be another, long-winded (and possibly very contentious) post, so I will not go down that road at this time.