Low carb diet conclusion

While I still feel that starchy carbs are not the way to go, I am now convinced that low carb diets don’t really do much for you. I lost about 10 pounds I’d say and then I stopped losing weight all together. In order to start losing weight again I needed to reduce caloric intake. So maybe it wasn’t all a lie but it certainly wasn’t the whole truth. My solution is to stay away from pasta and white rice and white bread and replace those with whole grains and just watch caloric intake. It seems to me also that a balance is needed between fat and calorie intake. What seems to be key is balance.

Questions and answers

We have questions, tons and tons of questions about life and God and everything. These questions undoubtedly have answers. The answers build an infrastructure of life, a cold logical structure that, by itself, at it’s end is as meaningful as a remote control. The structure makes life easier for those of us that have trouble filling it in with the guts of life. The guts, unlike the structure, by themselves make things easier also. Only in the combination of the two do things get more complicated. The infrastructure is logical thought, questions and answers. The guts are emotions and connections throughout existence. With just the structure life may boil down to meaningless purpose, task completion, and without the guts it may just be purposeless with apparent meaning in emotion alone. I think the key may be in a synergy of the two. But if you find yourself asking question after question, finding answers that seem to leed to more questions, perhaps you should start resisting the urge to chase down those answers because you can simply always build more structure, always. So perhaps you should not seek to build more on the structure and try to fill it in with some guts.

Low carb test of evolution, week 2+3

During the second week of the low carb diet I found that the hungover feeling I was getting in the morning went away. I also noticed however that My brain was not functioning with its usual speed. I noticed that I had trouble finding the right words to use while speaking. This effect was similar to the effects of fasting and was quite obnoxious. Gladly though this seems to have gone away after the second week. Also I have had a hard time getting to sleep unless I stay up very late. In the morning it is exceptionally difficult to get out of bed also, much more so than normal. Though at the end of week 3 this effect seems to be dissipating a little. I attribute these things to my body adjusting to the new diet. I have also lost fat, though I do not weight myself so I don’t know if I’ve lost weight, I can see the changes. Also at the end of week three I’ve noticed an increase in my carbohydrate cravings. For the most part these have been easily dealt with and simply a minor discomfort.

My theory is that, evolutionarily speaking, our bodies adjust to the kind of food we give them. If we give them agricutural-type food our bodies understand that in winter this food will not be available and thus that it needs to store all the energy it can to make it through the winter. On the other hand if we give it mostly meat it knows that it has to stay lean in order to hunt successfully. This makes perfect sense to me and fits in with the results I’ve read about and am seeing in myself while on this low carb diet.

Testing evolution; Week 1

After researching low carb diets, granted it was only online research, I came to the conclusion that low carb diets could very well be beneficial to people’s health. I already have a naturally suspicious mind and the fact that the people telling me low fat is the healthy way all have a vested interest in agriculture did tip the scales a little more. It seems to me that we’ve been duped, though perhaps unwittingly, by nutritional science. I came to the conclusion that you could scientifically prove either side of the debate and thus it becomes a matter of common sense and belief. I personally don’t put much stock in evolution as how we arrived on the planet but I do put a lot of stock in evolution as a way of explaining how our bodies work compared to how they did thousands of years ago. In other words species don’t evolve from other species, the vast majority of the time anyway, but they do evolve within their own species. This concept makes the most sense to me.

So I combined my beliefs with what my body would want me to eat if it had evolved to eat a certain way. I read many articles about what humans ate before civilization began, when most scientists would agree we did most of our evolving. The articles agreed with my own common sense when they pointed out that grains were simply not available and what the hunter-gatherer would have eaten would have come from animals (meat, dairy, eggs) or whatever they could find that was edible (wild vegetables, fruits, nuts). It is around this concept that I built my diet.

Let me explain the diet in detail. I allow myself how ever many calories I want to eat, allowing my body to tell me when to and when not to eat. I don’t count carbohydrates, I don’t have a number that I try to stay under or anything like that. However all of the carbs I eat come from one of the groups I mentioned earlier (meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, nuts, and fruits). I have not added fruits into the diet just yet but they will come in at a later time and will be somewhat of a rarity. I am liberal with what constitutes as dairy also, allowing things like cream cheese and sour cream into my diet. I’m pretty sure that my overall carbohydrate intake is below fifty grams a day and would guess it is fluctuating somewhere around 25 grams a day. I eat eggs, bacon, sausage, and cheese for breakfast, vegetables or string cheese for snacks, and either a ton of vegetables and cheese or meat and vegetables for dinner. I have not really felt the need for more meals than this. Though one thing I’ve noticed is I have to keep track of how much water I drink or I won’t get enough, my body doesn’t seem to want it as much until I’m actually drinking it. That’s pretty much it though. I’ve just completed the first week and I’m going to share my experience so others might know what to expect.

In a lot of ways it reminds me of fasting. I’ve fasted on several seperate occasions and they have all been relatively similar. The first few days of fasting you feel rotten, I compare it to a hangover. I attribute this to your body switching to using the stored energy in your body for fuel. After about the first 4 or 5 days of fasting the rotten feeling dissapates slowly leaving you pretty much feeling okay, though very hungry. With this diet that same rotten feeling is here, usually only in the morning and not as intense as when fasting. After breakfast it goes away but it does make me not want to eat sometimes. I attribute this overall yucky feeling to the same thing as when it happens while  fasting, just to a lesser degree since you are still feeding yourself. Also it seems to be lastin longer as on day 8 it is still there. It makes sense that if your body is only doing a small amount of stored energy burning compared to fasting there would be a longer adjustment phase. I expect that once my body adjusts completely this yucky feeling will vanish, I just hope it happens soon.

One big difference I have noticed is that my cognitive abilities are not impaired on this diet as apposed to while fasting. While fasting there is a definite mental fog and you really lose a lot of processing speed. That is not the case with this diet, though I would guess that in the mornings my cognitive ability is dampened slightly until the general hangover feeling dissapates with breakfast. Also there was a feeling of clarity that came after eating a lot of string cheese last night that I have not experienced while fasting, I really can’t explain it other than maybe my mind really likes string cheese as fuel. The feeling of extra clarity went away after about 20 minutes but it was pretty wonderful while it was there.

After one week I think I’ve lost a little weight, though I haven’t stepped on a scale at all, just appears that way to me. I also am not craving carbohydrates like I expected I would, and have in the past when I tried a low carb diet. This lack of craving might be due to my increased ability to control myself but I simply don’t know for sure. In time I hope to find out the intricacies of my own body’s reaction to this diet, and will post as ideas come to me. Perhaps you have a theory? I would love to hear it!

judge away

A man who grows can not be judged, even if a perfect being is the one who does the judging.  To continue growing is to escape judgement. This is a no-self argument, since in every moment you are changing, if you are growing anyway, you are becoming someone new constantly and thus any judgements made upon you are made upon someone you no longer are, rendering them inaccurate. Even the act of being judged would change someone so that the judgment was rendered inaccurate and thus the idea of an accurate judgment is an illusion.

Final Response to Anarchy

Click to access longanarchism.pdf

This is the article i am discussing, if you are unfamiliar with the ideas involved in an Anarchy, free-market system you should check it out first because i’m not going to get into the explanations for some of my ideas.

The argument for a free market anarchy system starts with, in this particular document, the problem with a forced monopoly. The arguments against it are limited in their validity. Calling the government, especially a democratic government, a forced monopoly, while technically correct, is not the whole picture. The government in a democracy is decided upon by the people. The question ‘Why does that one group have the power and no one else?’ is because we say so, simple as that. You can’t say they don’t have the right because they do have the right, we’ve collectively given that right to the government and they are answerable to us, we collectively have the final say, as it should be.

Is it the most efficient way to do things? No, of course not but why do we need the most efficient system? We waste some resources, yes, but hey that’s life, is anyone as efficient as they possibly could be? No. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to do things better and more efficiently but if we can’t get to 100% efficiency we shouldn’t really worry that much about it, especially not enough to just abolish the whole system.

Also there is competition. It comes from other governments, if someone doesn’t want to subscribe to the American system anymore they are free to leave and try another system. How is that a monopoly? The argument that it’s not necessarily the best working system i’ve already addressed. But if there is a better idea out there we can adopt it, or not, as we see fit. And if the rules the government makes are that outrageous we can simply collectively change them.

The next problem i have is the argument for private enforcement agencies. In the article the argument for them is that it is more expensive to subscribe to the enforcement agencies that will use violence to solve disputes. Which is likely to win in a dispute? An agency that will use force or an agency that will not? The answer, sadly, is the one that uses force will win against any that do not also use force. That is simply the human condition, fear of pain and death are powerful. So the argument that it is more expensive doesn’t apply since they either all will use force or only the wealthy will be able to afford the ones that do… that’s a quick road to oppression, i truly hope everyone can see that! What you want in an enforcement agency is that they get the job done, done quickly, and the end result is favorable to you. So what is likely to happen is that everyone has mercenaries backing them up. Eventually that leads to fights between agencies, viing for power.

i’ve addressed organized crime before but it is worth repeating. There are still laws in an Anarchist society, social contracts so to speak. There will still be people who want things like drugs and prostitution illegal. So since there will still be things that will be only available on a black market there will still be organized crime. But in Anarchy there is no central enemy of organized crime, instead its enemies are divided and as such decidedly weaker.

i still see it as likely, regardless of any educational achievements, that insurance companies will be able to merge with enforcement and other companies for efficiency sake. This is a dangerrous road as it leads to no separation of powers, which we should all recognize as bad.

Speaking of separation of powers i have one final argument against anarchy. i think it’s the strongest and i am surprised it hasn’t come up before. The problem is religions. We all know that religions are powerful organizations and as such they could easily offer insurance to their believers. Not only that but they could offer great rates, better than the competition, since they could ensure a certain moral character to their policy holders. Now do you think it is likely that it would stop there? I think history tells a different story. It would be entirely conceivable that religions, not insurance companies or enforcement agencies, would emerge as the new governmental replacements.

Would people have any trouble giving them more and more power? Not those that already subscribe to the belief that they are correct ro the one true faith, they would most likely argue that the organization should be a universally accepted truth and so more power given to it could only be a good thing. That’s the blanket statement of most religions, ‘we’re right, they’re wrong and therefore should be converted in order to save their immortal souls.’ People would believe they were doing the right thing when they destroyed another person’s life in the puruit of saving their soul. If only there were something in history we could learn from on this matter… If you haven’t read my essay on the separation of powers, my ideas are there.

Problem of Evil

The problem of ‘evil’ is an argument against the existence of God as a perfectly ‘good’, all-powerful being. The argument seems valid and is very compelling at first glance. The main question of this argument is “If God is all-powerful and perfectly ‘good’, why is there so much ‘evil’ in the world?” The question is a hard one to answer and many have tried and failed but if we look a little closer i think we can get to the bottom of it.

The argument operates under the assumption that God is an all powerful being. A counterpart to the ‘problem of evil’ argument is, what I call, the all powerful problem. The all powerful problem is that an all-powerful being could seemingly create something that would make its self impotent. To be all powerful, to most, simply means capable of anything. I will challenge these definitions and ultimately prove the argument known as the ‘problem of evil’ and its counterparts to be erroneous arguments against a perfectly ‘good’ omnipotent being known as God.

So what does it mean that God is all-powerful? As stated above, all-powerful means, to most people, capable of anything. Because it is stated as anything it is subject to any fantasy our crazy little minds can come up with, including the impossible. This idea is ludicrous. I hold two assertions regarding power to be objectively true.

First of all, I assert power deals only with the realm of what is possible. There are things that are simply not possible for whatever reason even for a supremely powerful being. This, however, does not mean the all-powerful being is any less powerful. For instance, one might ask what would happen if God made an unstoppable force and an immovable object and the two happened to run into each other? It would seem one object would prevail, meaning God would have failed in creating either the unstoppable force or the immovable object.

Since God would have then failed, it follows that God then would not be perfect nor omnipotent. Does this mean there can be no perfect being? No, it simply means that in order for one of the objects mentioned to exist, by definition, the other simply can not exist. The same is true about the common question, could God, being all-powerful, create a rock that He-Himself could not move? If it is true that God can move any object, then it is also true that there is no such thing as a rock He can not move. Therefore, even He could not create such a rock, not because He is not powerful enough, simply because it is not possible. This realization limits our concept of God to the realm of what is possible. Since this example of something that is not possible exists, it follows that there are other things that are not possible. However, I allow that some things that seem impossible may very well be possible.

The second assertion is that having the capability to do anything possible through innate ability is not a necessary condition for being all-powerful. While there is no doubt that a being capable of working miracles with the snap of a finger would be considered very powerful, a being can be powerful without this or any such capabilities. Take, for instance, the President of the United States, he is considered the most powerful man on the planet during his term in office. He does not have the capacity to work miracles, in the biblical sense. If we are to apply this concept of power to God, then His omnipotence could simply mean He is just in charge of everything. This possibility can not be overlooked.

Our new definition of an omnipotent God then is a being that is capable of making anything happen, excluding the impossible, through possible and available means. Since there is no way to know what means could possibly be at God’s disposal, the discussion of omnipotence has to end here.

Anarchy Plans

“– If opting out is allowed, then sure, this description of voluntary group organization is fine. If opting out is not allowed, then proactive violence is required to keep the system going, and that’s when you arrive at a state.”

You can opt out any time you want but as you said; “Choices have consequences in any system.” The choice is yours, so are the consequences. In our case opting out is to not live within this society. If you live here you must pay for the services the government affords you, or have your rights severely restricted. I suppose in a way it is already a kind of contract based system. Proactive violence is a last resort when other methods have failed to bring about compliance with the terms of the contract, the laws. This is no different than in an anarchic system, the last resort would be to call an enforcement agency to use force to solve problems. No doubt this private police force would be a highly efficient corporation but would it be any less susceptible to corruption? Of course not, we wouldn’t have stopped dealing with people, capable of making mistakes and bad decisions. But ultimately the private police force would not answer to the public but to its bottom line. Sure it would need to maintain its reputation in order to remain in business but it wouldn’t be hard for a PR firm to keep public opinion favorable. The public has proven itself highly susceptible to propaganda time and time again.

You asked for proof… Well I have two things to offer. The first is what I have observed within our own system, and in people. As I said we are still dealing with people and all the problems that come with them. If you think that freeing them from a government is going to change the basic nature of people I think you are deceiving yourself. You don’t seem to be that naive so I’ll go ahead and continue. It is apparent to me that people lack a basic sense of satisfaction. This drive for more sustains industry, pushing it to come up with more and more things to make life better. In some respects it is a good thing. The problem comes when it is combined with power, some is simply not enough. In a free market system power comes only with money and influence. You could argue that buyer power is a check to this but the reality is that if the company has something people want they will fall victim to its propaganda, allowing whatever small injustices are committed to go overlooked until they no longer have a say.

The second piece of ‘evidence’ is simply what makes logical sense to me. Why would corporations in a free market not diversify? It would be fiscally irresponsible of them not to do so if it would increase efficiency, lower operational costs, or increase profits. I think it’s safe to assume that it does at least some of those things, or it wouldn’t happen. I’ll use the same example I’ve used before. Insurance companies would rely heavily on investigative firms to determine whether they are liable for damages in any given circumstance. It makes sense then for an insurance company to set up its own investigative firm, making things cheaper and more efficient for everybody, Yay!… Why would they stop there? They wouldn’t. In the name of lower costs they would establish their own, or merge with pre-existing, enforcement agencies which would ensure that people were living the least risky lives they could in order to keep premiums down. I’m sure you get that this can not be allowed to happen and your counter to it was that the people would be well educated against such collections of power.

Educated people with a suspicion to this kind of consolidation of power would undoubtedly exist within your society. The problem is that eventually they will die which means there will be a transition of public will from one generation to the next. The place these new generations would be getting their ideas from would not be any different than it is now, the school system. Naturally we always want what’s best for our children so the more funding a school had the more likely a person would be to send their child there. The school itself is its own business also so it has every incentive to find more ways to make money. This would mean that every inch of every school would be for sale to marketing firms. Not only that but who’s to say that people couldn’t purchase a whole teaching position? There may be other schools that didn’t sell out like that but ask yourself which school would have better books, equipment, facilities, and technology? Lets back up a step and take a different angle.

This is simply what I would do in an anarchic society as you’ve described it to me if I were in charge of a large insurance agency. I’ll even include how I would spin my actions to ensure the media coverage had a favorable tone. I would first attack the educational system, probably on the grounds as I described above. I would launch a PR campaign against the system, calling it poisonous to free thought and innovation, two undoubtedly highly valued ideas within a free market system. Then in a public show of frustration I would, seemingly spontaneously, announce that I was going to open up hundreds of schools that would have the best of everything and would not have every inch for sale to marketing. “No more will the creativity and free thought of children in this nation be choked to death by the never ending commercial that education has become.” I’d say as I got visibly agitated in front of the cameras.

My ruse would work and even if it didn’t my schools would be just as good, if not better than the ones that were for sale thus attracting parents and their children. I’d have all the money I needed from loans since insurance would be as close to no-risk as it gets and schools would clearly be the way to invest since kids are so impressionable. From there it would be easy to slip in propaganda with the children’s lessons. Slowly reprogramming them to one; only want my insurance, two; not be suspicious about consolidation of power, and three, four, and five; whatever else I wanted them to think. Not only would I control the future thoughts of a large part of the nation, I would control their money also. From this point it would be easy to sell the idea that they were getting a good thing by my company becoming a center for all of their living needs. Now since I am a just and honorable man I would not betray the trust bestowed upon me but would my non-exploitative behavior be shared by all those who would come after me? I think history tells a different story.

“Your recognition of the downsides of monopoly in some instances but not others further evinces your prejudice.”

Hmm, good point. I guess we all have our preconceived notions.

“– Without the choice to opt-out and go with another organization, you fundamentally have no true sway, only the concessions of a tyranny which exist to make the appropriation of your resources less costly.”

As apposed to subscribing to an organization that exists to make its own resources less costly… Bus as I said there is the option to opt out. I chose not to opt out and instead will try to help fix the system from within. I agree that my sway has been drastically limited, but not because I won’t opt out. My vote, along with yours, is being diminished in value by the large influx of private money into our government’s operations. Something must be done to stop the bleeding of power from the body of the public but I doubt anarchy is the answer.

More on Anarchy

I think much of our contention arises from our differences in defining what a government is. A group of people see they all have common needs and so they form an organization to oversee and ensure the meeting of those needs. In order to ensure those needs are met the people agree that the organization needs resources and so they each agree to give a portion of their own resources (be it time, money, or something else), thus each is actively participating in his/her own needs being met. This is a government, however big or small it is it is still a government. Whether or not it has the right to proactive violence, as you put it, is solely up to those people who are contributing to it.

I am of the mind that proactive violence is wrong and no one, not even the government, should have the right to use it. I think we would be in agreement on this point. I think we just have to focus on how to fix the problems with our current system, my idea is to root out the corruption that is strangling it now.

“– Do you think it likely that Americans could be persuaded by a popular TV show to consent to make the presidency a hereditary monarchy? I don’t, because a distrust of hereditary monarchy is in our DNA.”

No, honestly I don’t think you could. However you could probably convince them that the merging of insurance and enforcement companies would be a good idea. Especially if it promised a reduction in premiums. It would probably take a while to reverse the education you prescribed as the cure but I don’t think it’s very far-fetched at all. Insurance companies, who have very deep pockets, could just start founding schools. Since there would not be any standard really across the country for what to teach, it would be up to whatever company was running the school. No doubt they wouldn’t stray too far from the normal things, at first anyway, but there would be subtle messages, subliminal or otherwise, most likely both, that would suggest whatever the owner wanted. Over time the paranoia against these companies merging would dissolve, leaving the way open for the merger. Then they could focus on allowing the mergers of more and more industries until one, maybe more, company would be almost like our government, but that didn’t answer to the people.

In the event that there was competition for this mega company, without anything else to gobble up, it would most likely turn to “illegal” means to take territory/customers from the other mega-companies. I don’t necessarily mean war in the traditional sense either. Corporate espionage, sabotage, and propaganda are far more likely and just as, if not more effective. The people under each would not want to switch companies because they would be under the influence of crazy amounts of unrestricted propaganda. Made to think the other company or companies were terrible, and the one they subscribed to was by far the best.

I don’t think this is unlikely, in fact I think it is the inevitable conclusion to an anarchic system.

“Should a sociopath not want to contract with an insurance company which required such dear terms they would be left completely to their own devices, “outlaws” in the root sense of the word, subject to “frontier justice”.”

So there is no choice then really. It’s either pay for insurance or risk being shot by someone who’s crazy suspicious of anyone without it. How is that not just like a tax? You may have a choice of provider but there is no way of “opting out” as you put it. You pay for protection, in your society it is protection from paranoia, in mine it is from corruption. I, for one, would rather pay into an organization I feel I at least have some sway over. Unfortunately what little sway I do have in our current system is being taken away by corporate maneuvering within Washington. Yet people seem content to just let their power go, just as they would in your system. I say let’s fix the government instead of abolishing it.

Sticky prices

So i was grocery shopping and i noticed that most of the prices had dropped permanently to what was, just last month, the sale price. How long ago was it that gas prices dropped? i’m not sure but i know it has been a while. That’s what i’m thinking the cause of the price drop is. It is the only thing that makes much sense to me.  i wonder when the delivery charges will finally be dropped from ordering out. You remember when they started being put on in response to crazy high gas prices about 2 years ago. When gas prices came down though there was no removal of those charges, though maybe soon.

It was at the same time president Obama announced we would begin pulling troops out of Iraq that oil and gas prices plummeted? Supply and demand anyone? The economists working for the state blame it on the recession, i know. i blame the recession on it. What would you do if you knew the prices of everything would soon be dropping in response to an increased supply of cheap oil entering the market… like from spoils of war. You, if you wanted to keep your money, would sell most everything. You’d get out while the getting was good, you and everyone else who is in the know, so to speak. Well that’s everyone who has been around long enough to understand the cycles of the world, so a lot of people. What happens when massive amounts of people start selling their stocks? The price drops and the market goes down.

Don’t buy in to the story the media is selling you, blaming everything on sub-prime mortgage lending. That was a problem yes, but only because the market took a nose dive. If it hadn’t those banks would still have the money to support those loans.