Sugar Substitutes: Friend or Faux to the American Culture?

Sweet n'Low, Equal, Splenda - tons of names and sugar additives are provided to our society, but for what purpose? Sugar substitutes stand by the idea that people who still want the presence of sugar in their food can experience sweetness and the guilty pleasure of sugar without the caloric impact. Sugar substitutes are not happenstance additives that occasionally make an appearance in the diets of American people. There are a number of sugar substitutes provided by the food industry for people to escape to. Their presence in food is almost haunting; it can show up in the most seemingly natural food. Not only that, but the taste between faux sugar and the real thing is obvious and disappointing. Data has also shown that many sugar additives actually provide more harm than good on the human body. If humans are what they eat, then are they ready to trade that mere teaspoon of natural sugar in for a plethora of chemicals?

Additives can say a lot about the values of American culture. Sugar substitutes demonstrate an obsessive quality that plagues society. People feel the need to count every calorie, every sip, every grain of a product. Why? Because they can. As human beings and Americans, individuals have and love the ability to maintain control over as many aspects of their lives as they can, including one's diet. They are infatuated with weight and appearance as well, which one would think translates to health in terms of concern. However, if dieters were truly interested in their health, they would be using natural sugar in moderation. The usage of sugar substitutes is very paradoxical in this way. Contemporary Americans need to take a broader look at the positive and negative effects of sugar substitutes before treating it as a highly consumed product that makes its mark on society.

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" - Nicholas Carr

Nicholas Carr constructs an all too applicable article for these modern times in his piece, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?". In his article, Carr claims that the human self is undergoing an extreme transition in this world that stresses efficiency and immediacy. People are beginning to act like the avid decoders they are and operate without much feeling as proven by Carr's many examples. For instance, the invention of the type-writer in conjunction with the late writer Friedrich Nietzsche's blindness yielded a change in rhetoric and style in Nietzsche's work. His prior terse pieces became even more telegraphic in style due to his use of technology.

Carr goes on to explain that it is quite possible for the human brain to reprogram itself, and that our society is presently experiencing such. Our malleable brains are adopting simpler exercises due to the fact that internet-based services allow us to skim, browse, and extract information at our leisure. The decoders of information the internet has to offer have no choice but to add themselves to the equation of productivity and the consumption of information. Granted, Carr is assuming that all internet users utilize the services of Google and that all web-browsing is done in a distracted manner, his predictions and observation are spot on. There is a new sense of self on the way for the people of the world. Whether users are becoming more stupid or not, it is clear that some change is underway.

Where the System Reigns

With a highly connected, accessible, and wireless world, possibilities seem to be endless. However, they are just that - endless. The world has become a monotone place providing an infinite amount of distracting resources. This plethora of information is re-programing the individual to work by the binary coding of one's computer and the tick of one's time device. What happened to the world where humans acted and reacted to how they felt? Those days are gone and have been traded in for a world where humans are just a part of a big equation, and I do not think I'm okay with that.

I strongly agree with Carr's statement on the net's presence in the lives of people today. The internet and information resources are not necessarily making people less knowledgeable or futile in any way, rather, information technology is changing the way people approach life. I think that this new self that has been formed in reaction to information technology is not nearly as creative or in depth as the minds that precedent them because they are swallowed in the world of convenience. I think imagination and creativity are extremely important to humans because theses qualities add variety and spice to what can otherwise become a mundane way of life. Our lives now revolve around iLife, Facebook, Twitter, and our cellphones. What happened to face-to-face interaction? Phone calls? Thank-you notes? Personalized invitations? Written love letters? The internet is enabling people to get comfortable in this easier way of life that can get away with little to no creativity because everyone is doing it.

Pardon my stance on the issue, but as a sociology major, effective human interaction and social behavior is essential for influential decision-making and a productive society. Has anyone ever thought that some of the troubles in the world could be solved with more human interaction and less technological innovation? I believe a medium between accessibility, technology, and what would now be considered "old-fashioned" means of education and knowledge should be found. We as individuals cannot completely lose the purpose information serves to us and take it for granted by skimming and allowing our thoughts to wallow into a world of obscurity.