I’m not a vegetarian, but I rarely eat meat, if only because I’m 1. broke as a bad joke, and 2. not terribly fond of the taste. The fact that feedlot cattle are about as bad as you can get for your health short of fois gras doesn’t help matters. Not that I eat healthily, but I do try to eat stuff that’s awful for me in extreme moderation.
Anyway, no, I’m not exactly attached to the animals I worked with, but I’m not a fan of how most beef cattle are fattened on a feedlot, or how most mass-produced animals are treated, for that matter. People are going to eat them either way, but that doesn’t mean they deserve to have a shitty life before then.
I’m a big proponent of animal welfare, and the approach of people like Temple Grandin. Science has proven that well-treated animals end up with more weight, better meat quality, and fewer diseases, and most measures required to treat animals well are a small initial investment from the farmer, with an ongoing payback. As a rational human I have to boggle at the fact that there are still operations out there that treat animals like shit and ruin their own product. Economically, it’s just stupid. Yeah, it’s kinda shitty morally, too, but really, money talks.
Long story short, I usually don’t eat moocow flesh, but I won’t say I never do…but I do try to avoid non-grass-fed beef.
[Question in reference]
Well, I can understand having a discrete goal to make yourself study. I was initially after becoming a veterinarian, to be honest - by far the easiest way to get into vet school (aside from being innately incredibly motivated and very resourceful with your time) is to declare your intended specialty as “large animal” and prove it with your studies. Obviously I never went that route, as about a million things happened in my life between now and then, but it was a goal to reach for during my freshman year, at least.
That said, *don’t*. Stop. If you don’t have a passion for medicine or science, it is not worth becoming a family physician, at least in the United States. Yes, they have relatively high salaries. Yes, they’re generally respected. But the hours of medical school and the debt you go into are not worth it.
Obviously I don’t have direct experience, but I have good friends who are a family practice doctor, urgent care physician, and pediatrician, and none of them would have made it through the grueling work load of their residencies and first several years of work in their practices without a passion for helping others and getting fulfillment out of that alone. What good is respect from your community if you can’t be around to receive it? What good is a “high” (trust me, it won’t feel high for a long time) salary if so much of it goes towards loans?
There are tons of things you can do with a biology degree. If you don’t even like science in general, achieving any degree with that GPA can often be enough to get you into a graduate program in a subject you’re passionate about, and a graduate degree usually takes much less than 4 years and can help you get a job in that field.
I’m not saying you have to work in a field that you’re passionate about. Some people work in order to live, and have awesome and fulfilling lives outside of their day job. That’s perfectly fine. But being a family care doctor is not really a job that you can do that in, at least for a long, long time. If you have the patience to wait a decade to have a life outside of work, maybe it’ll work out alright. If not, find a job within the other sciences that you don’t dislike, or get a graduate degree in a field you have passions for. You can make a good salary and earn respect in many other professions. If you don’t truly find at least some happiness or fulfillment in helping others and learning about medicine, don’t go for being a physician.
…a job that involves a fully heated barn. >_> Or a lab proper. Feed analysis. Milk processing and analysis. Manure analysis. I love the bovids, but I’ve spent enough frigid winters here to know I’m not about to create a career when it involves actually being outside in this weather…or, even less likely, when it involves the hellish summers of the south.
I’m fine with the cold, to a point, but I don’t love cows enough to go past that point.
Honestly, if I could have any job involving cows that I wanted, it would involve culturing and analyzing their rumen microbes. I love that kind of thing. It’s somewhat repetitive, it doesn’t involve the great outdoors, it doesn’t involve much contact with the animals (if any), but I find it the most fascinating. The bacteria and protists are cool, but the DNA of the viruses that infect them often give them new abilities that they never had before, even if there’s a chance (within the first few generations after infection) of the virus killing them. But if they don’t, the tiny buggers now are even more powerful than before! If cows don’t have a proper microbial level, they literally cannot survive past the stage where milk alone can sustain them.
Also biology. General biology. The most boring kind.
I have a FAQ that says things like “I did the study with cowkin and mitochondria”
Hm hm hm. Let me say, first off, that I doubt that kid had the Taenia solaris I was talking about, but! - Fun facts!:
If that was really the pork tapeworm, that was probably due to multiple infections of Taenia. Once inside the (human) body, the Taenia larva has a very difficult time moving between the digestive tract to the respiratory system. Muscular cysts are common in those infected with Taenia, for the same reason that brain lesions are not unheard of - they’re direct stops along the circulatory path, and don’t immediately branch into tiny capillaries that transfer gasses to the alveoli.
However, if a kid (or, less often, an adult) ingests the eggs of the parasite incompletely (leaving some in the back of the throat), or while coughing, the worms have been shown to be able to set up shop better in the lung than in the brain. They’re able to reproduce there, which is what leads to them being coughed/sneezed out. In the brain and muscles, they’re only able to form cysts and wait…and hope that the human dies and a pig eats their flesh. :(
If I’m being 100% honest here, I do most of my “light reading” (the overviews of stuff I’m interested in) as I have a beer or two. I write most of my posts after drinking a bit, too. Never “smashed” or “super drunk” or whatever it’s called, because 1. I can’t think like that, and 2. I hate feeling like that so I avoid it.
That said, I almost always read scientific papers and do my editing when I have nothing in my system but my normal medications. I try to do everything I can in the morning - I may have more interest in writing at night, which is fine, but I’m only well-focused until about noon, and no matter whether I go for a walk, eat, or take a quick nap, the afternoon is never as productive for me.
When I was in school, I would always make a point to wake up early, haul my butt out of bed, and go to the library (or student center, if the library wasn’t open yet), and study *before* class. I tried studying at night, or doing papers at night, but I never was able to do them without getting completely distracted and not caring…and the kicker was that I’d stayed up so late trying to do them that I wasn’t able to wake up early!
Anyway, not everyone works the same way, but what I’ve found helps me personally is trying to learn and work in an environment where I’m away from most distractions, but that I know enough that I’m not confused/nervous about my surroundings, and to do things in the morning as much as possible.
UI Chicago has a great compendium of resources for various study/learning tips, and they cover many different study styles.
And Prof. Rapaport at UNY-Buffalo has a good rundown of general study tips, with a different viewpoint than the UIC website.
Thanks, though I don’t think the person who thought I was wrong doesn’t know anything.
After all, I don’t claim to be an expert in any field, and there are almost certainly topics where you know far more than me. No one can know everything…that’s the price of existing on this massive (tiny) and fascinating planet, and having such limited time here.
The most critical skill to learn (and somehow manage to maintain in today’s school systems and societal structure) is how to work with others - how to learn from others, how to collaborate, how to teach others, how to build off of others’ knowledge, everything.
We are all so tiny. We can’t learn everything about existence. We need to listen to others, and learn how to disregard biases against gender, nationality, “race”, and religion. There are brilliant Kenyan Muslim women, and intelligent white Canadian Lutheran men, and wise agnostic Indian hijras. Disregarding input from any of them because of some preconceived bias makes us miss out on a chance to learn.
When the previous question asker tried to correct me, I reminded him that I don’t appreciate being told that I “regurgitate” things, and showed him why I believed my opinion to be correct. Sometimes people believe that they really know something, and aren’t aware that the scientific literature contradicts what they were taught. That’s okay. I just don’t like being talked down to, when someone thinks I’m wrong.
Your user name fits you. :|
Until you provide references, I prefer to stick to sources with any credibility. I did not include both possible etymologies at my source link, simply the one that has been deemed to be closer to credible. Anything from the other side of the Danube was “Turkish” to the English. Turkish rugs, Turkish delights, Turkish coffee - and most of the “Turkish” things were not actually turkish, but simply exotic. Why wouldn’t the Turkish coq be the same?
If the name truly derived from the bible or Hebrew it would be expected that its name would not be completely different in the romance languages or languages of the middle east. Instead, those languages generally call “turkeys” some form of “Indian chicken”, again, because of the assumed source of the bird.
Honestly, I don’t care if I’m right or wrong on this one at this point - sources are very divided, and none of us were there to name the thing.
If you want to read what an actual scholar has to say about the matter (and not a science communicator such as Robert Krulwich, or a “nonsense myth regurgitator” like me), here. Go to the highlighted part of this book, and see how tangled the etymological web is, and how wrong your theory most likely is.
Reminder to readers: I always accept corrections - when they’re delivered in, at the least, a neutral tone. I don’t accept people being dicks to me for no reason.
Whoops, I meant to write “prairie chickens and grouse”. I must have left my “pheasant” window open. You’re correct - fixed the post.