the bird on fire

The Bird is the Word: Sophisticated Schoolyard Shenanigans

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Powered by Genesis

Would YOU eat ethical fish eggs???

April 20, 2023 by szachik@pvs.org Leave a Comment

By Junior Levi Kassinove

Hello. Today I’m going to tell you a little tale about…caviar–otherwise known as the cured eggs of the sturgeon fish. 

Caviar in the 19th Century 

Man devouring 70K worth of caviar in seconds (grubstreet.com) 

Let us travel back to the 1800s, when caviar was eaten by the bowlful by even the poorest of peasants. It was cheap and abundant, like lobster once was, which was fed to prisoners and slaves. During this time, the Russian Empire was the largest exporter of caviar in the world. They were pretty much the only producer (solexcatsmo.com). Then, the rest of Europe and the US started producing caviar. Soon, every American diner was giving caviar away as free appetizers. People were obsessed with it. There was demand, but it was still cheap. Even in the 1970s, caviar was only $60-70  per pound (nytimes.com). Comparatively, the lowest quality caviar is now upwards of $1000 per pound today (bestercaviarstore.com). What REALLY caused the upsurge in price was the immense overfishing of sturgeon. Multiple species of sturgeon declined in population, with the popular beluga sturgeon suffering the worst. It is now listed as a “critically endangered” species by the IUCN. As a result, the illegality of fishing for the beluga sturgeon caused caviar industries to turn to farming, making wild-caught sturgeon extremely valuable. But, we don’t have to kill the sturgeon to enjoy the eggs any more…

How We Can Harvest Caviar Today

Female sturgeon getting an ultrasound (caviarstar.com) 

Whereas the traditional method for extracting caviar involved cutting the fish’s stomach open and ripping its guts out, the stripping method is much more ethical. One method involves simply injecting the sturgeon with a hormone that separates the eggs from their connective tissue, and then massaging the eggs out of the sturgeon a few days later. This method does not kill the fish, and even allows the sturgeon to produce more eggs in the future. An ultrasound is used to determine the optimal time to perform the procedure. By harvesting the caviar without killing the fish, we can slowly repair the damage done to the sturgeon population due to overfishing. (ift.org) 

But How Does It Taste?

Stylish caviar tasting (nailsbyshurik.wordpress.com) 

There is a MASSIVE difference between fake caviar (bowfin fish eggs) and real caviar (sturgeon eggs). Bowfin is a bony fish that yields small, dark, red-tinted roe (caviarstar.com). Bowfin is a cheaper and easier-to-produce alternative to caviar. Even according to the Food and Drug Administration, “real” caviar comes only from sturgeon (ift.org). I’m not gonna talk about the red eggs because that’s not caviar either, although salmon roe is pretty good. A good way to spot the difference between real caviar and bowfin eggs is simply to look at the price. If you see a jar of black “caviar” being sold for $10-15, it’s fake. Bowfin also has much smaller eggs than sturgeon. The bowfin eggs will taste overly salty and fishy, giving you a terribly inaccurate impression of caviar. Real caviar is absolutely delicious. It’s subtle. Sturgeon eggs are creamy, nutty, and only slightly salty. If it tastes fishy, there’s something wrong with it. 

I highly recommend that you all try caviar at least once. And, if you can, make sure that the caviar was ethically produced. As they say in Russia, do svidaniya!

Filed Under: Food, Morality, Op-Ed Tagged With: Levi Kassinove, Would YOU eat ethical fish eggs???

Should we edit children’s genomes?

April 9, 2020 by szachik@pvs.org 1 Comment

By Katelin Slosky

In Ms. Castellano’s 9th-grade Biology class, we discussed DNA and the effects of editing genomes. It got me thinking.

While editing genomes may have medical benefits such as treating many human diseases, including sickle cell anemia and cancer, is it something that we should be doing? Genome editing could have drastic effects on future generations, so are we willing to take that risk for the medical benefits now?

On one hand, we could cure (or completely prevent) genetic diseases. On the other hand, how far are we willing to go to edit a human’s genes? Are we willing to accept the risks of humans having that much power over their own species? Is editing a child’s genomes ethical? The benefits may seem to outweigh the negatives, but do they?

While we could prevent children being born with genetic disorders or disabilities, that also erases what makes them unique. Another question is where do we draw the line? Where is the boundary between disease treatment and just flat-out “enhancement?”

One question I have is whether humans can be responsible with this much power. We have a history of not handling great amounts of power very well, and I fear that, while this sounds good on paper, this could have disastrous results.

Morality Editor: Luke Langlois

Filed Under: Morality Tagged With: Katelin Slosky, Should we edit children’s genomes?

What is Morality?

March 31, 2020 by szachik@pvs.org Leave a Comment

Co-written by Renée and Chelsea

Is morality strictly a code of conduct, or ¨standards by which one decides what’s right and wrong,¨ as one of our anonymous sources put it? This is what we tasked our student populace to decide. . . .  Is morality always rational? How does one determine what’s right or wrong? How does one know what’s good or bad? Nature does not seem to bother itself with these questions, but we humans do. Morality isn’t clear cut in our world. There are layers and layers of circumstance to try and factor in. How do we choose between beliefs when we are stuck between two…? Most of us would agree that something such as killing is wrong. But, what is the “right” decision, if there even is a right decision? To test your morality, we presented a paraphrased version of the famous “Trolley Problem” and other moral quandaries.

Survey Questions:

*What is morality (to you)?

*There is a runaway unmanned trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person tied down on the sidetrack. You have two options:  Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. What is the right thing to do?

*As before, an unmanned trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by pushing a very fat man next to you onto the track, killing him to save five. What do you do?

*As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You can divert its path by colliding another trolley into it, but if you do, both will be derailed and go down a hill, and into a home where there is at least one person living there. Anyone in the home would die. What do you do?

*As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. This time you are on it. You can divert its path, but if you do, you would be killed. What do you do?

*You’re a gifted transplant surgeon who has five patients, each in need of a different organ who will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young vagabond, passing through the city, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, you discover that his organs are compatible with all five of your dying patients. If the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect you and he has no family left. Do you kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying people and save their lives?

Aurora: Morality is someone’s personal beliefs. It depends on the person. Survey responses– pull the lever, no push, save the house, save self, no sacrifice patient.

Conner: I don’t know! — no pull, yes push, save the house, kill self, no sacrifice patient.

Leslie: I don’t know. — yes pull,  yes push, yes wipe out the house, kill self, no sacrifice patient. 

Leo: Morality involves the values that I hold subjectively (my value system). — no pull, no push, kill self, save the house, sacrifice the patient.

Anonymous: Morality is making an active choice between right and wrong. — yes pull, yes push, yes sacrifice the house, no don’t sacrifice the vagabond patient.

Josh: Morality is knowing right from wrong. — no pull no push, no don’t wipe out the house and occupants, kill self, no don’t sacrifice vagabond.

Sofia: I don’t know how to define morality. — yes pull, yes push, yes sacrifice house occupants? kill self, sacrifice vagabond (if there are no transplant patients if not, then no).

Dominic: Morality is having morals and would be the extent to which one knows right and wrong. — yes pull, yes push, no don’t sacrifice house occupants, no-kill self, sacrifice vagabond. 

Anonymous: I don’t know about morality. — yes pull, no push, no don’t sacrifice house occupants, kill self, sacrifice the vagabond. There are too many factors and in real life, I don’t know. There is no “right answer.”

Nathan: Morality is the idea of doing “good” things based on your own code. —  yes pull, no push, yes sacrifice the house occupants, kill self, no don’t sacrifice the vagabond.

Anonymous: Morality is the standards by which one decides what’s right and wrong. — pull the lever, no push, don’t sacrifice the house occupants, kill self, no don’t sacrifice the vagabond.

The “moral” of the story is . . . relative . . . .

Morality Editor: Luke Langlois

Filed Under: Morality Tagged With: Chelsea, Renée, What is Morality?

My Morality is being honest to myself forever

March 24, 2020 by szachik@pvs.org 1 Comment

“Very deep and insightful. It made me look into myself a little deeper. I loved it.”–Gerry Dobbins

By Quintus Ni

Time passes like flowing water and disappears silently. When I quiet down and look back, I find that people always sigh deeply at certain moments.

They sigh for some things, some people, or some little experiences……

Then, I come to the conclusion that actually life is not easy, and each person has their own embarrassments. When you try to understand the past and don’t mind your embarrassment anymore, something called compassion will appear in your heart. When you learn to accept your merits and demerits, it means that you are also making peace with the world.

“What does not kill you makes you stronger.”

I didn’t believe this sentence before. I thought it was just a typical motivational quote, until I experienced some things. I have to admit that some “bad” experiences are not necessarily bad, because they at least taught me something.

Every day is new because people experience different things. When you learn to consider and summarize what has happened in your life, your views will gradually become deeper and deeper, and naturally you will come to your own unique ideas of life and morality.

After you experience something, you will be rewarded with gains, feelings, and wisdom.

It is just like traveling. If you go out to see more, naturally you will have a broader vision and mind. Meanwhile, you will be more aware of what you long for most and what the things most worth cherishing and pursuing are. Therefore, it makes sense that senior citizens often say that the more you have experienced, the more you have gained.

I remember in my younger days, when I argued sharply if someone slandered me; I replied angrily if someone misunderstood me; I refuted with more vicious words if someone insulted me……

I was definitely an extremely direct person with sharp characteristics, successfully making myself the person I hate the most.

But later, I learned to adjust my mind positively, and finally understood that no matter how good you are, there are always some people who don’t like you. The world won’t reward you equitably for what you have paid, and it won’t treat you in the same way even if you did treat others kindly.

It is life and its experiences that has made me peaceful, setbacks and difficulties that made me positive, and the people of the world that made me tolerant.

I gradually learned to accept and face everything calmly, treat the people around me more kindly, and be undisturbed no matter what happens. In this way, I slowly taste life and settle myself in time.

Fairness and unfairness are common in life. But it’s uncommon that you can still remain humble, peaceful, kind, and optimistic after you experience much.

Someone once said that your calmness comes from your past innocence, and that your kindness comes from your past sadness and uneasiness. I look back and find this to be absolutely true.

Even the most irritable people will gradually become gentle and patient if they are polished by time. We’ll eventually grow from those years when we got angry and listened to no one’s advice. Then we will smile and accept it all, good or bad. An ancient saying says to remain indifferent and leisurely watch the flowers bloom and fade.

Eventually, we may no longer be as imperious, impulsive, and carefree as in our childhood days, but we’ve already known the width and thickness of life.

We have cried, laughed, lost, doubted, and hesitated along the way……But, finally, we have learned to regard everything as growth.

Maybe this is what life should be!

You live up to time, and time lives up to you.

Morality Editor Luke Langlois

Filed Under: Morality Tagged With: My Morality is being honest to myself forever, Quintus Ni

Morality, the Individual, & the Masses

March 20, 2020 by szachik@pvs.org Leave a Comment

 By James Zheng

Morality is just a fiction used by the herd of inferior human beings to hold back the few superior men.

— Friedrich Nietzsche 

There is inspiration that can be evoked from a single sentence. Nietzsche says that morality is a worthless concept. I think what he said is right and can’t be refuted. 

Nietzsche’s definition of morality in the quote is not referring to the “common” understanding of morality. That morality is not the Christian doctrine.

Before we continue into Nietzsche’s perplexing mind, briefly think about your definition of morality. Our accordant definition of it might just be the principles concerning right and wrong, or good and bad behavior, but Nietsche does not care about right or wrong. Does he even know what is right or wrong? [Quote Nietzsche?]

Although in Nietzsche’s time most of the objects and thoughts of his word were focused on Christianity, its scope was far beyond that. I think Nietzsche would say that even if he lived in the present.

Nietzsche’s philosophy is what is recognized as the thoughts derived by the “strong man” (how Nietzsche characterizes himself). Ordinary people always want to put the wisemen at the same level as them.

In case you don’t understand what I just said–the mentioned morality is an unspoken rule established by the majority in the society, such as what is allowed or when and how to do something. This is their system of consensus.

Something that seems to be off the topic but worth mentioning is that from Nietzsche’s vision, the strong are the individuals who pursue self-transcendence, so that they themselves become the standard of conduct of everything, breaking all the agreed norms of the secular world, and putting their own norms in the highest position in the world. Nietzsche sees conventional “Morality” as an excuse for the weak to “despise” the strong. The weak say, “Hum, those so-called strong people are just immoral people.” They want to popularize the vulgar norms of their own connection, so as to make the strong yield to them. Nietzsche characterizes himself as the strong and those who obey the social norms as weak.

For example, I used to see this type of phenomenon in middle school. A student is studying during the break while a group of other students would be messing around near that student. One of them couldn’t endure watching the studying student, so he said, “Why do you keep learning when you’re already really outstanding? You’ve got a stable situation, you can definitely get to Tsinghua or Peking (the two top universities in China)! You are making us so nervous!” Well, that’s the way they stop that classmate from continuing his study. His latent meaning is “Now we should be all enjoying our life for doing whatever we want. Why do you waste time on studying? Do you not know how to follow the public will?” Conformity becomes a type of morality.

I think that’s what Nietsche meant by “morality is of the weak.”

But here, the other students can be called “the weak,” but the student who studies can not be called “the strong.” The former is called “the weak” because they impose their own kind of “morality” on others and destroy their transcendence. If the student gives in, he can only wait to be the next “weak.” If he carefully considers the meaning behind other students’ words and decides whether “conformity” is his own “morality,” then he is a strong one. The logic is quite simple. 

As for why Nietzsche said morality was a “fiction,” Nietzsche believed that this kind of social conforming “morality” is false. The real morality of a man can only come from himself rather than from others.

Consider one of Immanuel Kant’s books named Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. He denies the moral command of God but affirms the moral absolute command in the human heart. Why? Because the former is from the outside world, the latter is from his own. Kant found no reason for others to force you to do anything. Nietzsche agrees with this point. 

Your self-discipline can’t come from the outside world. Morality from the outside world needs you as the judge. If you think it’s rotten, then it’s rotten. The strong is the one who constructs his own moral values. Those values will inevitably conflict with the moral values produced by the weak. In the perception of the strong, this kind of “morality” is fiction.

Nietzsche’s ideas are subjective and can be considered as “offensive” to our normally conventional thought. But his primary advocacy concentrates on the crucial word “innovation” rather than “convention.” Coming back to morality, at last, we do have an agreement on what morality is and know the prohibition of certain behaviors, but by hearing the intriguing thoughts from Nietzsche, I hope you learned something new from it.

I asked PVS junior Nathan Bosworth what he thought about Nietzsche’s points. He replied, “I believe with all my being that this quote from my boy [Nietzsche] is the meaning of capitalism, because social norms need to be suppressed to get what you want. In other words, to acquire what you want, you have to do something unethical.” I actually had a long talk with Nathan about what morality really is. We finally came to a vague conclusion that true morality might not even exist. After that, I came to our notable scholar Mr. Griffin who had something deeper to say: “I think [Nietzsche’s] quote is really narcissistic, and it reminds me of the character Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment.” Mr. Griffin went on to point out that Raskolnikov commits misdeeds to prove himself a superior person. He continues, “If you think about it more, it applies to The Picture of Dorian Gray as well.” To me, this became even more edifying as I recalled the contents of the book. 

Nietzsche’s definition of morality revolves around unreasonable social norms. What is your definition of morality? If you simply look up the word in Google’s dictionary, it just shows you “the distinction between right or wrong, good or bad.” But that raises a bigger question: how do you distinguish between right and wrong or good and bad? Do you follow the law of nature? Do you follow your own heart? Or do you follow the herd. . .   

Minor ideas of this post regarding the conventions of morality were originally proposed by Blogger Sizhe Chen

https://www.zhihu.com/question/330764652/answer/747464096

Morality Editor: Luke Langlois 

Filed Under: Morality Tagged With: and the Masses, James Zheng, Morality, the Individual

About

We are the Palm Valley Firebirds of Rancho Mirage, California. Join us in our endeavors. Venture through the school year with us, perusing the artwork of our students, community, and staff. Our goal is to share the poems, stories, drawings and photographs, essays and parodies that come out of our school. Welcome aboard!