Choices: They always exist

 

     "I don't like either choice." "Why bother? Neither choice is any good." "I'm going to wait until there is a choice I like." One of the most glaring indications of the failure of students to come out of their formal, or informal, education with the ability to discern logic is that of not understanding the ability to reverse the direction of comparison. By this, I mean that if one object is worse than the other then -- automatically -- that means the other choice is better than this one. Having a "good" choice is not required for a person to make a better choice. "All" it requires (more easily written about than done) is to be able to compare choices.

     "Ah. But if I don't like either choice then I am indicating my opinion by not making a choice." Nope, you're just improving the odds of whatever you consider to be the worst of the choices. NOT making a choice for the better choice is equivalent to improving the chance of the worse choice being chosen. Or, in mathematical terms, no "+1" to the better choice becomes (by not making a choice) "+0" and the comparison is closer.

     It is possible that both choices truly are awful -- perhaps such that you aren't easily able to make a decision as to what is worse. At this point of choosing, there may be no possibility to create, or find, other choices that you consider an improvement. You are forced to fall back to choosing the better of the two. It is also an indication that you need to improve the selection of choices for the future.

     This can happen within a democracy where there are two (or more) stages of the electoral process. By the time of the election, a choice must be made between candidates. But, before that, there is a process where the candidate is chosen between various possible candidates. If you don't like either choice in the current election, then NEXT time get involved earlier in the process (and, for the current time, vote for the less bad). And getting involved doesn't stop at attending rallies -- you have to participate and then actually vote. But, that's for the next election. For this one, vote for the better.

     Lack of making a choice does not change inertia. A rudderless boat will move but only according to the whims of the wind and the waves. Making choices is a core aspect of leadership. Even a poor choice (if evaluated and changed when it is known it is the wrong one) is better than none because it allows focus of energy and future choices. There are a few special cases where only an informed choice is useful. Any other, non-informed, choice is just a guess -- and guesses are not necessarily an improvement.

     My wife and I like to watch Jeopardy! on a daily basis. Every so often, there will be a situation where the "question" is unknown to the contestants. One person guesses and fails. Then another person guesses and fails also. At this point, I am imploring the person on the television (yes, I know this is irrational as they cannot hear me) to "don't guess, don't guess". At this point, the person who has NOT guessed is "up" in relation to the other contestants (contestant A down x amount, B down x amount, the person not having guessed is UP x amount in comparison to A and B) -- they are in the same position as if they were the person to have guessed the question correctly. Of course, it they know the answer, answering is great. But if they also guess and fail they have just lost their competitive advantage. Yet, many of these third contestants are "caught up" in the moment and guess also.

     "Hobson's Choice" is a situation where there is really only "one choice". That is an illusion. There may be only one non-ludicrous choice but there is always the choice of doing something or not doing it. Get angry or don't get angry. Push the button or don't push the button. The consequences of one of those choices may not be acceptable (and the other barely acceptable) but we are really back into the same situation described in the first paragraph -- choosing the better of alternatives.

      We cannot create what is happening now but our choices often start processes on a path which will lead to future situations and choices. The choices of today make a difference for the future. We are always in the midst of a decision tree where each choice presents us with a different set of choices depending on that original choice.

     And not making a choice is still a choice.

The Science and Economics of Nutrition, Summary

We've seen that nutrition involves bringing into the body a full set of "building blocks" such that the body can build, repair, and maintain itself.

Starvation occurs when the body does not have enough calories to maintain its "operational needs" -- not enough fuel to keep going. When the body does not have enough calories, it first burns stored fats and then starts burning proteins -- which include muscles and organs (such as the heart) and eventually causes death.

Malnutrition occurs when the body does not have enough of all of the different "building blocks" to create, repair, and maintain the various components of the body. This is particularly devastating to the young when they are initially forming the body -- it can cause long-term effects. (In adults, temporary malnutrition can be recovered from unless it lasts too long.). Illness and inability to perform daily tasks well are often the outcome of malnutrition.

In the U.S., we are fortunate that private charitable food banks and government programs make starvation almost non-existent. However, malnutrition exists to a considerable degree with a greater concentration among the poor.

There are four components of achieving good nutrition. These are knowledge of good nutritional needs, action taken based on that knowledge, time, and money. Most of the focus is on knowledge -- but many educational programs in school attempt to avoid science and rely on "rote" formulas. This lack of foundational understanding of nutrition makes the task of achieving good nutritional balance difficult in an atmosphere of mass media marketing. False, or misleading, claims are easily accepted. Sometimes it causes rote formulas to be followed such as "red meat is bad" without understanding WHY read meat CAN be "bad".

Money directly enters into nutritional decisions. Good nutrition is more expensive than poor nutritive, high calorie choices. Given a sufficient budget, however, it is possible to provide good nutritional meals but it requires time to plan, choose, and prepare good meals.

I have never encountered a "30 minute meal" that I can prepare in 30 minutes. A parent who is working two (or three) part-time minimum wage jobs does not want to allocate the time -- there is homework to work with, houses to clean, medical appointments and soccer games to juggle. Well balanced restaurant meals are expensive but fast food alternatives are widely, and energetically, marketed and sold to the public.

Frozen vegetables are more nutritious but take more time to prepare than canned. Given a choice between a $1 apple and a $1 candy bar -- which do you think most children would choose?

Many books and even television series have been produced about good nutrition. In order for it to be applied, however, the underlying principles need to be understood in order to map that information to good choices that can be applied each day.