Stimcrab's Nonfiction

[stimcrab]

Here, I'll showcase my articles. These range from philosophical ruminations to downright silliness at some points. So, please, stick around, read something, and leave constructive criticism!

[stimcrab]

We've come into this new decade with a severe problem. Currently, the fastest growing source of food is aquaculture, which is essentially agriculture, but underwater. I'll overlook the environmental impacts for now and focus on the economic infeasibility of aquaculture. As it stands, aquaculture takes an absurdly long time to establish, and even then, there is no guarantee of it working. Not only that, but almost one third of all things harvested via aquaculture cannot be used at all and is lost for one reason of another. The US especially is uncompetitive in aquaculture, resulting in almost $10 billion dollars being thrown out of the window because Joe Six-Pack needs his fish sticks. Let me put $10 billion dollars in perspective; with that amount of money, someone could theoretically orchestrate enough events to make the entire plot of Serpico play out in real life. Serpico! Why the government has not pursued this further is a question you should all raise with your local congressman.
Joking aside, agriculture is just about as doomed as Dr. Frank-N-Furter in Tijuana. Humanity has overused pretty much all available land, and the world's population shows no sign of stopping, shockingly enough. It makes sense that aquaculture is taking off in such a manner, but here's the kicker, current aquaculture is going to overfish itself soon enough if it stays on the track it's on. So, humanity, you're hurtling towards a Malthusian dystopia that's pretty much going to have at least one brand of Soylent Cola and there really doesn't seem to be a viable solution.
Some person came up with a solution. It's called symbiotic aquaculture, and it just might save the world. Symbiotic aquaculture is a fairly simple process, in which two species (one plant and one animal to feed on the plant for all or some of its dietary needs), who can both be eaten by humans, would be grown together to lower food costs and possibly double the yield of current aquaculture. However, this process is entirely dependent on which species are chosen and could theoretically just act as a ferry for invasive species. It's a tempting offer with some risks. However, I believe in a moment where time is running out (clichés suck, but it's relevant) it doesn't make sense to ignore any option. Unless of course, you enjoy the taste of human flesh and the smell of napalm in the morning.

[stimcrab]

There is a simple reason that I really hate fall. It is this time of year that my entire family momentarily migrates up to our vacation house in northern Pennsylvania, and we rake. Now, we have over a square mile of property up in 'dem dar' hills, and, suffice it to say, it is forested. That means that it takes approximately six or so hours. That's six hours of pure earth shattering boredom. This year, to make it even worse, it was windy out.
My father and I both have different styles of raking. He tends to wield his rake like a pickaxe, violently stabbing downwards. I treat the rake like a broom, sweeping it in one direction, parallel to mine. These both have pros and cons. The pickaxe style, while fast, is very inaccurate, which can end badly in a windy day. My broom style is very accurate, but it is slow, which can also be detrimental on a windy day.
People tend to be rather prideful. My father and I both thought that the other was wrong. We ended up stubbornly defending our points of view. When one is going against the wind to begin with, it makes sense not to go against anything else. Why make your job that much harder? When you are digging a hole in the frozen ground, would you use a blunt shovel? Unless you are a masochist, the answer would most likely be 'no.'
Now, let's think of politics. People tend to get so wrapped up in what they think is right, they forget what their purpose is. What is the purpose of elected officials? Is it to further an agenda? No! It's to represent the people who elected them! The job is already hard enough, why descend into a pit of squabbling partisan peacocks? A person cannot effectively do their job if all they do is push their agenda. A person has a purpose for a reason, and that reason is to bind them to their duty.
Politicians, in order to work together, must realize the faults as well as the good things about the doctrine that they were elected to serve and uphold. There are lots of things in this great country that I don't understand: the sudden onset misuse of the word socialism, using the word "intellectual" as an insult, why there are only two parties, and why the Democrats, the party of life and equality, can condone abortion. I don't pretend to understand these things, but I do understand that, without some semblance of cooperation, politicians are doomed to accept only their agenda as gospel and get nothing done in the process.
So, Mr. and Mrs. Senator, why not take a lesson in raking in unity?

[TrevorW]

At 2/2/10 08:48 PM, stimcrab wrote:

So, Mr. and Mrs. Senator, why not take a lesson in raking in unity?

I feel this could have been stronger if it related back to the raking more strongly. How did it end? -- what were the effects. Fully relate you situation to theirs; don't say you can relate to their problems and then stop the explanation half way -- that's mean.