Reviewing Human Nature: Empty Oceans, Empty Nets Screening

In the age of a global economic crisis, wars with the Middle East and a sharp decline in the overall health of Earth’s climate, one can't argue that one thing in life is steadily climbing: the human population. It is only a matter of time until consumer demand will implode upon itself in the quest for food and shelter.

In the documentary film Empty Oceans, Empty Nets, shown on Wednesday, February 18 at the Ferguson Auditorium in the Alexandroff Campus Center at 600 S. Michigan, students were exposed to the rising consumer demand of fish and how factors such as overfishing, bycatch (or “wasted” catch) and vicious fishing practices are contributing to the decline of the world’s fish population. According to Dr. Daniel Pauly, fishers are using more than just a net capturing fish across the seafloor. They are now using more advanced techniques to capture fish, often using cyanide, dynamite, trawling (which captures underwater life/vegetation with heavy nets attached with rollers) among other technological advancements to help them weed out any possible hiding spots for marine life. However, the marine population is slowly dying as the demand for seafood rises, while prices remain relatively stagnant for the most part. The marine population begins to decrease as the bottom end of the food chain (intervertebrates and plankton-eating fish) gets captured, thus depriving the higher-level marine life from their usual meals.

This film was very insightful in the sole fact that this specific problem within the fish population can be attributed to other resources that humans waste in real life. As the human population increases, one can deduce that the consumption of food will rise as well and soon, the ability for humans to eat will be overshadowed by a loss of product. In this film, it is mentioned that at one point, the world’s total catch peaked at 100 million tons; however, the time will soon come when fish cannot replenish their population as rapidly as human seafood consumption. Even more disturbing is the fact that many consumers and vendors are failing to notice where the fish they sell are from, and if that particular fish is in danger of extinction. However, two thirds of the world’s population live mere miles from the ocean and even the most populated continent (Asia) rely heavily on the protein found in fish. Hundreds of millions are employed as fishers, scientists, vendors, etc, but overfishing still occurs in order to meet the global demand.

The main point is made extremely clear in this film: people must be more aware of the damages they cause, instead of relying on ignorance in order to satiate their appetite. In the end, consumers simply must read research and read listings to see what fish are readily available to eat and contribute responsibly to the earth. If humans continue to disregard other species in pursuit of consumption, soon fish and the rest of th food chain will start to deteriorate, just like the icebergs that have melted due to global warming.

Review: Is value still relevant in a bag of chips?

Even in these meager economic times, The United States is still in a state of excess. Unemployment rates are skyrocketing and obesity is still as popular as ever. As companies crumble and dictators tumble (down the treacherous path of tyranny and unequal rights for all), one thing is for certain: a cheap bag of potato chips. But how low can one go for that delicious bag of Ruffles™ Cheddar & Sour Cream chips?

The answer lies at a local convenience store or at a nearby Jewel-Osco where one can get the mother of all deals: a 35 cent bag of chips (or 4 for $1. However, unless you a fresh-faced child born alongside the Nintendo 64 in 1996, you will definitely remember the price used to be 25 cents a bag.

However, adjusting for inflation, one can find that price of a bag of chips raising by 40% within thirteen years is not so bad, especially alongside cars priced in the $30,000 range (as opposed to the price of a 1996 Toyota Corolla, which was priced at $11,000 in 1997).

At the headquarters of the Frito Lay™ brand in Plano Texas, chips are processed into different-sized bags, ranging from the large 9.5 oz bag to the (now) $1.29 bag of chips, which states the serving size per person is 11 chips, a lie in itself, because we know obese Americans can consume much more than 33 chips in one sitting.

Like a new digital cable package, it’s true that the more one buys, the more one can get for their monies worth. A 9.5 oz bag of Ruffles™ chips contains 110 chips, according to the nutritional facts, and is regularly priced at $3.99. A small bag of chips is still a quarter at most locations. So, why does the small bag of potato chips, which, at times, contain as many as 18 chips per bag, have more value than the party size bags (which never fill the bag)? It takes six to eight small bags of fun-size chips (with an average serving of 14-16 chips per bag) to equal the number of chips in a large bag, yet the price will only be 2 dollars (at roughly 4 bags for a dollar), plus tax. The goliath bag of chips, which is almost never under $3 is not a deal.

I have come to understand the American public’s appreciation of a good, old fashioned blind taste test to prove their doubts. Fifteen random Columbia students were chosen to try two chips, one from the $1.29 bag, and one from the value size bags. The response was overwhelming: a small bag of chips was voted “cheesier, better tasting, and even described by one woman as having a “rich” taste. The results were quite shocking: 13 voted on the value bag as “more delicious,” and the rest, in the spirit of American politics, those two votes were destroyed and/or misplaced in Florida and Ohio.

There is this nagging suspicion in the back of my head that food companies know more about us and our demographics. Therefore, they know we are susceptible to a valued bag of chips, and are prone to buy in bulk later. Like test driving a car, one should always take a taste by driving a few miles, and maybe, just maybe, we’ll spend more of our money and buy the whole damn thing. Margarine might just be fat, but it tastes better than butter. According to Roland Barthes in Mythologies, Margarine goes further than butter and costs less. A value bag of chips will curb my appetite until dinner and it allows me to live cheaply, just like the margarine I spread on my morning toast.

I’ll stick to the chips that cost a quarter. They don’t last long, but they pack quality over quantity in every chip, a rare trait to find as prices begin to bottom out in this recession. What else are you going to spend that quarter on: a gumball?

Review: If Artists Ran the Media

During the 2008 United States election season, there is no doubt that the news media went into overdrive, reporting on everything from First Lady fashion to explosive arguments from lesbian lovers Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson. There was relentless coverage on the worldwide economy going sour, and even the media wasn't safe from a crumbling, post-Bush era economy. As the United States spiralled toward the worst recession in decades, who can blame the media's pessimistic attitude?

Some individuals are simply disgusted with the media's overportrayal of every facet of life. At an art school like Columbia College, who can blame the young adults for eliciting such a strong response? At the C33 Gallery, located at 33 E. Congress Parkway, an exhibit entitled "If Artists Ran the Media" is currently running until Feb. 20. This exhibit showcases work from Columbia students and groups, utilizing a wide variety of new media options that would make a newspaper editor blush. Though traditional art is prominent at this exhibit, there are also audio recordings, videos digital enhancements and zines that will appeal to the casual viewer.

Even more striking is the detail put into each work of art, from the hand-stitched "Conspicuous Presence" by Milo Bosh, which sews together the inadequacies of Vogue Italia's failed "Black Issue," giving the bland cover a symbolic update as stitches litter supermodel Tyra Banks' face. The symbolism rings true for many other pieces at the exhibit. Showing a grittier side of the media, the images created by Columbia students speak more than a thousand words cluttered together on a newspaper page.

It is true that new media is overtaking old practices, however the topics of contention remain the same: politics, war, poverty and occasionally, the latest hot-topic controversy. At an art school known for "Creating Change" the topics covered at this exhibit are getting quite trite, often falling into the realm of political corruption and correctness. Even the media provides commentary on more facets of American society, like blogs that cover celebrity entertainment and gossip to the sports news programs on ESPN that love to roast the latest steroid-induced baseball legend.

However, the overall effect of "If Artists Ran the Media" is not lost. The students effectively showcase that a biased and slanted media will always stay the same. As overzealous news channels and advertisements geared towards reporting on the "truth" stuff society's mouth with over information and baseless rumor-mongering, this exhibit succeeds in having viewers like myself wanting more. But then again, art is an open-ended criticism on life in itself, a place where criticism is valued, rather than swallowed whole in a flurry of misinformation and bad judgment propagated by an apathetic media.

'If Artists Ran the Media' is currently running at the C33 Gallery, located at 33 E. Congress Pkwy until Feb. 20. The C33 Gallery is open from 9 a.m. To 7 p.m. from Monday to Thursday and on Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.