Why Gold?

Why gold as a reserve currency? Here's a cogent explanation from intellectual-detox.com, emphasis added:

The Gold Standard

Some people ask the question: "Should the dollar be backed by a gold standard." But that is the wrong question. The right question is what will happen.

Any government that is strong enough will want to enact a fiat currency. If the government is greedy it will enact a fiat currency to reap the benefits of seinorage. If the government is benevolent (or thinks its benevolent) it will enact a fiat currency to smooth over economic fluctuations.

The world switched to a fiat currency when the U.S. had enough domestic and international hegemony to enforce the dollar as the global standard. The fallacy that many believe is that gold was made obsolete because of technology and "progress". They believe that somehow basing a currency off a inert, mostly useless metal is somehow archaic.

But gold is not a natural currency because its shiny. It's a natural currency because it is the best Schelling point/Nash equilibrium for a group of independent actors to settle on as a store of value. If you have five independent, mutually wary agents (either individuals or governments) trying to negotiate a common store of value, then gold is the default because a) no one can simply print infinite amounts of it b) it has the highest stocks to production ratio, so its has the least amount of dilution from mining.

As the American manufacturing base rots, its military fails at yet another war, and its political system continues to spin in circles, people and nations may start to lose faith in the dollar as a store of value. At that point, the most natural alternative as a reserve currency will be gold.

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

Food

From a friend: http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/health/2010/fall/sweet-satisfaction.shtml

Thinking about food makes you eat less.

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

Interesting blog

Interesting blog. Will get added to my regular feed.

http://www.halfsigma.com/

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

MLK Day Terrorist Bomb

About four hours away from me: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0119-spokane-bomb-20110119,0,3022661.story

Is al Qaeda diversifying outside of airports, or is this another lone crazy like Loughner?

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

Marriage rate

This data is U.S.-only:

Age	1970	1999	2000	2002	2004	2008
Male:
20 to 24 years	35.8%	83.2%	83.7%	85.4%	86.7%	86.9%
25 to 29 years	10.5	52.1	51.7	53.7	56.6	57.6
30 to 34 years	6.2	30.7	30.0	34.0	33.4	32.4
35 to 39 years	5.4	21.1	20.3	21.1	23.4	23.0
40 to 44 years	4.9	15.8	15.7	16.7	18.5	16.9
Female:
20 to 24 years	54.7%	72.3%	72.8%	74.0%	75.4%	76.4%
25 to 29 years	19.1	38.9	38.9	40.4	40.8	43.4
30 to 34 years	9.4	22.1	21.9	23.0	23.7	24.0
35 to 39 years	7.2	15.2	14.3	14.7	14.6	15.2
40 to 44 years	6.3	10.9	11.8	11.5	12.2	12.9

(From http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763219.html)

It used it be that 95% of 45-year-olds had been married at least once. According to this chart, it's now down to 87% for women, 83% for men. On one level this is worrisome: the U.S. is already underpopulated by global standards, by about x3, if you go by people per acre of arable land. On another, Darwinian level it's merely amusing. I predict that the marriage rate in 2070 will be at least as high in the United States as it is today, and families will probably be slightly larger, because the people who never marry (like me) will have bred themselves out of the gene pool...

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

Manipulation WAS RE: Touching base

Hi T.,

[Max wrote] "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life. But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first." (Matt. 19:29-30.)

[T. wrote] I've never thought of applying that scripture in that way, I've always thought of it regarding the Gentiles and house of Israel.  The house of Israel was the first to receive the gospel at the time of Christ (focusing specifically on the Jews for example) then the Gentiles after Christ's ascension; even so, in this dispensation the Gentiles (and the lost tribes of Israel) will receive the gospel first while the Jews will be after Christ's second coming.

[Max replies] Some principles apply in multiple situations and are given as the answer to more than one question. For instance, see JST Matt 5:32-34 ("if thy right hand offend thee..."), where hand/foot/eye represent sins according to v 34, and the same analogy in JST Mark 9:40-48 where they represent other people. The scripture does apply to the Gentiles & House of Israel as well (for instance 1 Nephi 13:42) but here in Matthew 10 (and also in Mark 10:29-31) Jesus is answering a question about personal destiny. It wouldn't make sense if he answered Peter's question by talking about the Gentiles: he is talking about Peter (and it's quoted in the scriptures because the same answer applies to all the righteous).

[Max wrote] 2.) One reason the inversion occurs in the first place is that eternity and mortality play by different rules. Things that work inmortality don't work in eternity and sometimes vice versa. (See Moses 8:15 for an example of playing by mortality's rules, and where it leads.) ...

[Tom wrote] I'm not sure I follow your thinking here.  Are you saying Noah's daughters were playing by mortality's rules and thus condemned of God?

[Max replies] I suspected that reference was too oblique when I wrote it. Compare Moses 8:12-14 to Genesis 19:14, and think about the fact that Noah's granddaughters (and grandsons-in-law) were not on the Ark. Why? At least in part, because their husbands weren't spiritually awake. (Didn't take Noah seriously, just like Lot's sons-in-law didn't take him or the message from the angels seriously.) Why then did they marry these men? They must have had something to offer--we don't know if it was good looks, or money, or just making them feel great emotionally--but they valued those qualities more than they valued a love of righteousness, which is why the Lord says they "sold themselves." As for the husbands in question: yes, they got the girls, and were probably popular with their (wicked) friends and rich to boot. And then they drowned. And spent the next 3000-4000 years (at least) in spirit prison. Short-term success, long-term failure. It only looks like success in the short term.

[Tom wrote] After reading your example below I'm glad you wouldn't treat your wife that way.  I do not believe manipulation is behavior becoming a priesthood holder.  I've found manipulation to, in a way, deny a person their God given right to be a person and choose despite their motivation.

I don't think I share that view, and in fact I think manipulation, in a sense, is an important duty of a husband. Women are emotional creatures, and it's my duty to know what her buttons are and how to push them. What is a candlelit dinner and a romantic evening but a form of emotional manipulation? You're using your knowledge of her psychology to customize her experience to put her in a certain mood. It's not like she minds, either, and in fact she will cooperate because it makes her feel good. Self-manipulation is also very useful: knowing how to push your own buttons in such a way that your emotions do what you want them to. The key component to both kinds of manipulation is actual knowledge of the details of how a person works internally.

However, I have other problems with the described behavior.

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

RE: Touching base

Hey T.,

 

I will have some questions to ask you about rock climbing, etc., at a later date, but right now I just want to make a quick observation about this topic:

 

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:13 AM, ... wrote:

With regards to single life in Salt Lake, I'm on the up and up, despite the impending 'ejection' from the young single adult ward due to my upcoming birthday.  I am hopeful things will eventually work out, but I only have minor girl interests at this point in time as well.  I hold to the maxim: "If you do your best, you can't do any better."  I believe everything else is God's timing and grace.

 

"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life. But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first." (Matt. 19:29-30.)

 

1.) Many that will be first in that day must be last here and now, or the scripture would be broken. If someone has to be last, it might as well be guys (and girls) who are equipped to handle it. Tougher, more stable, able to accomplish things even alone.

 

2.) One reason the inversion occurs in the first place is that eternity and mortality play by different rules. Things that work in mortality don't work in eternity and sometimes vice versa. (See Moses 8:15 for an example of playing by mortality's rules, and where it leads.) I think I mentioned that I've learned some interesting things from the pick-up artist community (sosuave.com for example), and there are some principles that I can use (paying attention to emotions), but there are plenty of other things that I can't bring myself to use because I would never treat my wife that way[1]. The price is that my success with normal, emotional women will be limited. I expect this to change over the next thousand years or so as resurrected women develop more perspective and better control over their emotions, but for now it's a price to be paid. Playing by long-term rules can impede short-term success: just ask your average socialite what the value is of following the Golden Rule.

 

There are things I don't know about your situation (and tastes, etc.) but I think these observations probably apply to your situation. Factor #1 is one reason I plan to look quite hard at girls who never married during mortality: it stands to reason that there should be some superb individuals among them.

 

-Max

 

[1] For example: never apologize even if you're partially in the wrong--being an emotional creature, she will take the cue from your demeanor. If you act like you're in the wrong, she will assume you're in the wrong whether you were or not. If you act like you're not in the wrong and freeze her out, she will chew over her own behavior until she finds something she did wrong and then decide she was in the wrong and come crawling back. Thus you maintain psychological dominance and the upper hand in the relationship, which conveys masculinity and keeps her attracted to you.

 

P.S. If you are at all interested in thinking about the long term, geopolitics is an interesting discipline to look at. George Friedman has a book called The Next 100 Years which is quite readable.

 

--

Be pretty if you are,

Be witty if you can,

But be cheerful if it kills you.

 

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

 

Case study: minimum wage laws

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/printer_101130-williams-minimum-wage.php

 

"The higher the price of something, the less people will take of it; and the lower its price, the more people will take of it? The law of demand applies to wages, interest and rent because, after all, they are the prices of something... [because of minimum wage increases in 2007] Sea International moved its operation from Samoa to a highly automated cannery plant in Lyons, Ga. That resulted in roughly 2,000 jobs lost in Samoa and a gain of 200 jobs in Georgia."

 

Let me be clear: I'm not concluding anything, or trying to tell readers (if any) that increasing minimum wage is always a bad idea. I don't know. I _am_ pointing out a case study to the effect that it's stupid to think that increasing the minimum wage by $1 an hour is the same thing as increasing income of the poor by $1 an hour. Unless they are underpaid in actual fact (i.e. they are actually worth more to the business than they are currently being paid, with their employer pocketing the difference), increasing the minimum wage will just result in their unemployment.

 

If you think about it, that makes minimum wage laws a pretty blunt policy instrument, since it has no way to account for actual worker value. If you set minimum wage at level X, you are making life better for some unknown number of people who are worth X and being paid less than that, and much worse for some other unknown number of people who aren't worth X and are now doomed to permanent unemployment unless their skills can be somehow upgraded.

 

Original link via Chaos Manor (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2011/Q1/mail656.html).

  

-Max

 

--

Be pretty if you are,

Be witty if you can,

But be cheerful if it kills you.

 

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

 

 

What to do when terrorists attack

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-terrorism-20101226,0,2998659.column

 

One of these days, one of these plots is going to succeed. It's not unpatriotic or defeatist to say that; it's realistic.

And that's why one of the most intriguing concepts in counterterrorism today is called "resilience" -- preparing for terrorist attacks and minimizing their impact when they happen.

Terrorists aim to damage their opponents partly by provoking reactions bigger than the original attack. Osama bin Laden spent less than half a million dollars on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington, but he caused billions in damage by prompting a shutdown of financial markets, air travel and other chunks of the U.S. economy -- not to mention the war in Afghanistan and the other counterterrorist campaigns that ensued.

But if a society is prepared for terrorist attacks, makes sure its citizens know how to react when they happen, and protects its transportation, communications and utilities networks from being paralyzed by local disruptions, the impact of terrorism is reduced. It's still a problem, but it's no longer an existential threat.

...In case of most terrorist bombs, experts say, the best thing to do is to seek shelter inside a building -- whether the bomb is conventional, chemical, radiological or (in the least likely scenario) nuclear. If the bomb is inside your building, get out; but if it's somewhere else, take shelter.

The greatest danger from most of those bombs may be from secondary explosions, airborne contaminants or radiation. Jumping into your car to flee merely exposes you to more risks, and when thousands of people try to evacuate, they choke the roads, cause traffic accidents and impede emergency responders.

But not everybody knows that. A 2007 survey found that in the event of a "dirty bomb," a conventional explosion that spreads radioactive material, 65% of people said their first impulse would be to flee. Flynn talked last year with New York City firefighters and said some of them didn't know whether they should tell people to evacuate or seek shelter in the event of an explosion. ("The policy of the department is clear, and that's shelter in place," responded Joseph W. Pfeifer, New York's assistant fire chief for counterterrorism. "We've trained everyone on that.... The real challenge is educating the public.")

"Nobody ever told the emergency responders what to do," he said.

In the case of a nuclear explosion, a study by Stanford professor Lawrence Wein estimated that a small nuclear device in Washington, D.C., could kill 120,000 people if most people sought shelter in buildings -- but 180,000 if most people tried to evacuate.


--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

Von Neumann (humor)

Subject: Von Neumann (humor)

 

From http://www.infiltec.com/j-logic.htm 

 

The following problem can be solved either the easy way or the hard way. 

 

Two trains 200 miles apart are moving toward each other; each one is going at a speed of 50 miles per hour.  A fly starting on the front of one of them flies back and forth between them at a rate of 75 miles per hour.  It does this until the trains collide and crush the fly to death.  What is the total distance the fly has flown?

 

The fly actually hits each train an infinite number of times before it gets crushed, and one could solve the problem the hard way with pencil and paper by summing an infinite  series of distances.  The easy way is as follows:  Since the trains are 200 miles apart and each train is going 50 miles an hour, it takes 2 hours for the trains to collide. Therefore the fly was flying for two hours.  Since the fly was flying at a rate of 75 miles per hour, the fly must have flown 150 miles.

 

That's all there is to it.

 

When this problem was posed to John von Neumann, he immediately replied, "150 miles."

 

 "It is very strange," said the poser, "but nearly everyone tries to sum the infinite series."

 

"What do you mean, strange?" asked Von Neumann.  "That's how I did it!"

 

--

Be pretty if you are,

Be witty if you can,

But be cheerful if it kills you.

 

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

 

 

Girl advice

[fwd to blog from another conference]

 

General girl advice to any young males who might be in love: telling her exactly what you're feeling because you can't hold it in any longer is not generally an effective strategy, because (her being a woman and you being a man) what you say is not actually what she will hear. Also, since women are more emotional than men (in general, just like men are taller in general--there are exceptions)--because of that, the best way to communicate may be to her feelings, not her intellect: use very few words indeed. The goal is not for her to KNOW how much you love her so she can make the correct logical inferences from that fact, it's for her to feel how much you love her so she can intuitively make the correct judgments for herself based on that reality. Note also that the goal is not for her to feel how much you need her--that's your problem. "I love you and I want to bring you joy. Interested?" It's an offer, not a plea. If not you are doing it wrong.

 

~Max

 

--

Be pretty if you are,

Be witty if you can,

But be cheerful if it kills you.

 

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

 

 

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

Check your pronunciation

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Announcing/Standard_Pronunciation

 

I think I've been mispronouncing "apartheid", "candidate", "electoral", "foliage", "inclement", "jewelry", "mayonaise", "Visa", "zoology" and "diphthong" for years. I would have been mispronouncing "bruschetta" too except I don't even know what the word means [five seconds later: I do now]. But at least I say "hundred" correctly (and "twenty" also, though it's not on the list).

 

Surprisingly, the way I pronounce "spiel" ("shpeel") is incorrect/nonstandard. The naive way ("speel") is correct. Oh, and "yarmulke" should be pronounced phonetically, after all.

 

-Max

--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

Articles of Faith

A friend of mine at work asked me, "What can you tell me about The Articles of Faith? Its history / purpose, etc?"

 

I really like the Articles of Faith, and I think there is logic and a pattern to the statements which not everybody notices. I've mentioned this to several people verbally but never written my observation down, so I think I will quote my response to him here on the blog just to get my thoughts on record, even if I turn out to be wrong. : )

 

The Wikipedia article is pretty decent. Originally written in 1840 or so as part of a response to someone who was writing a book on Illinois history or something and wanted information for include a chapter on Mormons. The fellow didn't end up using the information in his book but it's still a pretty good capsule description of the gospel. I might loosely paraphrase it thusly in my own idiom:

 

"We believe in God the Father, and also that Jesus Christ is his Son, and that the Holy Ghost testifies of both. We believe that sin brings punishment to the sinner, but that through the Atonement of Christ any man may receive forgiveness of sins which are past, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, which are: faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost. These ordinances must be received from the Lord's authorized servants, called by revelation. The church exists to organize those servants, now as in ancient times, and includes prophets, apostles, pastors, teachers, etc. as set forth by Paul the Apostle in Ephesians 4. We believe in miracles and in the Bible; we also believe in the Book of Mormon, and in everything else which God has revealed or will yet reveal, which is much. We believe in the literal fulfillment of Biblical prophecies regarding Israel and Christ's return. We believe in freedom of religion for ourselves and for those not of our faith, and in obeying the laws of the land. If there is anything which is true and good we also believe in it, no matter where that truth is found."

 

-Max

 

--

Be pretty if you are,

Be witty if you can,

But be cheerful if it kills you.

 

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

 

 

On American Power

Interesting observations on China, worth reading. I wish I knew enough to evaluate how correct his analysis of the response to China is. Be sure to read down to the "Lessons For American Power."

 

Beijing's recent missteps in Asia — moving ahead with reactor sales to troubled Pakistan and crudely threatening Japan over the arrest of a Chinese fishing captain — are swiftly solidifying America's Asian alliances.  The new Japanese government came into office hoping to rebalance Japan's foreign policy and reduce tensions with China.  That dream is now dead.  And China's deepening relationship with Pakistan, intended in part as a counter to America's nuclear opening to India, is driving Asia's other emerging nuclear power closer than ever into the arms of America (and Japan).  South Korea, once drifting peacefully toward China, has moved back towards the United States following China's support for Pyongyang after the sinking of a South Korean naval boat.

In all this there is one clear theme.  America isn't containing China.  China is containing itself.  As China's economy grows and its military develops new capacities, it is looking for ways to turn that potential power into actual power over events.  In the past, China has tried to attract its neighbors into its orbit with sweeteners like trade deals and aid.

But these measures apparently strike a new generation of Chinese policy makers as unsatisfactory.  China is too great a power to play nice, they think.  So they assert their territorial claims more and more boldly, and blow up disputes with Japan out of all proportion.

Lessons for American Power

These developments in Asia illustrate an important truth about America's world role: the foundations supporting our power are much stronger than many people here and abroad understand.

We have had a decade of hand-wringing about American power.  First, 9/11 was seen by some as a deadly blow against the citadel of American strength and the collapse of the World Trade Towers was seen as the start of the fall of America's economic and political domination.  Then the unpopularity of the Bush foreign policy was alienating our friends.  In the Arab world in particular, we were so hated that not even friendly governments could continue to work with us. Then we had lost the war in Iraq, and leading foreign policy analysts and politicians (most of whom had endorsed the war at the beginning) called for ignominious retreat as the best and indeed the only possible strategy.  After that came the stock market crash and the financial meltdowns of 2008, and the "Anglo-Saxon" model of cutthroat capitalism was said to have decisively failed.  After that came the rise of China, the hot new superpower in the east that owned our debt and therefore owned us — and that was going to sweep all Asia into a new economic and political bloc that would leave us in the cold.

This was and is all a bunch of hooey.  Americans do make mistakes in our foreign policy and these can be costly both for us and for other people, but American power is more durable than it sometimes appear.  American power is not eternal, and the world political order is not unchanging, but strong and deep forces in world affairs have brought the United States to its present position of influence and power; those forces will not disappear overnight.  Rome wasn't burned in a day.

The latest round of events in Asia provides a textbook case of just how strong the foundations on which American power rests in Asia really are.  The more China rises, the more Asian countries rally to the American side. [snip]

The entire article is worth your time. And now I must go back to thinking about fencing and hiking instead of politics.

 

-Max

 

--

Be pretty if you are,

Be witty if you can,

But be cheerful if it kills you.

 

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

 

 

Zombie ants

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/aug/18/zombie-carpenter-ant-fungus
--
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

The Voice of God

Christopher Columbus wrote of his trials on his fourth voyage the following account:

 

Exhausted, I fell asleep, groaning. I heard a very compassionate voice, saying: 'O fool and slow to believe and to serve thy God, the God of all! ... Thou criest for help, doubting. Answer, who has afflicted thee so greatly and so often, God or the world? ... Not one jot of His word fails; all that He promises, He performs with interest; is this the manner of men? I have said that which thy Creator has done for thee and does for all men. Now in part He shows thee the reward for the anguish and danger which thou has endured in the service of others.'

 

I heard all of this as if I were in a trance, but I had no answer to give to words so true, but could only weep for my errors. He, whoever it was, who spoke to me, ended saying, 'Fear not; have trust; all these tribulations are written upon marble and are not without cause.'

 

When I read these words I feel emotion not unlike that which Columbus himself describes feeling. And I feel so terribly proud of, and in awe of, Heavenly Father. He is exactly what a Man ought to be. When I grow up I want to be just like Him.

 

--

Be pretty if you are,

Be witty if you can,

But be cheerful if it kills you.

 

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

 

 

Ex-girlfriends

I've always kind of liked the idea of ex-girlfriends. It's a nice simple, uncomplicated, platonic relationship with a lot of warm feelings and none of the headaches or obligations associated with romantic relationships--if anyone asks whether you two are dating you can laugh and say, "Been there, done that," and close the subject. It's too bad that it's not actually possible to have an ex-girlfriend without having a girlfriend first, however instantaneously--a state of affairs which repulses me. (It's a wimpy halfway state which is neither friendship nor courtship but tries to be something in between, and in contemporary practice it's nearly synonomous with physical exploitation. Celestial beings have no use for boyfriends or girlfriends.) Fooey on the English language for that.

 

Someone should get me an ex- for Christmas.

 

-M.

 

--

Be pretty if you are,

Be witty if you can,

But be cheerful if it kills you.

 

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!

 

 

About Eggs

Factoids (courtesy of Harold McGee's "On Food And Cooking"):

• Chickens are "indeterminate" egg-layers, which means instead of laying a fixed number of eggs a fixed number of times per year, they keep on laying each day until they accumulate a certain number. If a predator, such as a human, takes one of the eggs before she finishes she will replace it before stopping. If the predator keeps taking the eggs she will never stop.
• An animal's "reproductive effort" is the fraction of her body weight which she deposits daily in her future offspring. A hen's reproductive effort is 100x that of a human.
• An egg weighs 3% of a typical hen's weight, and she may lay an egg almost every day.
• Imagine a human woman having a four-pound baby every day!
• An industrial hen may produce eight times her body weight in eggs over the course of her year-long life.
• A hen expends 25% of her daily calorie budget on egg-making. (Ducks expand half their energy on egg-laying!)
• Hens have only one ovary.
• Hens store sperm inside their oviducts. After the germ cell has accumulated enough yolk from the fats and proteins in a hen's liver, but before the egg white is added or the shell is formed, if the hen has mated recently some of the sperm will fuse with (fertilize) the germ. Either way the egg will still get laid.
• An eggshell has about 10,000 little holes, concentrated at the blunt end, to let air into the egg while the embryo is developing. All these holes put together would be about as wide as the head of a pin (2 mm).
• Inside of an egg yolk you can see a flat little white disc attached to ropy white things that look (sorry!) kind of like boogers. The white disc is the actual germ cell, whether fertilized or unfertilized, i.e. the chicken embryo. The ropy white things are designed to keep the embryo from smashing itself into the walls of the shell.
• Good news! This means that you don't have to be queasy about eating unfertilized chicken embryos, or feel nauseous when you think about the texture of the yolk. That's just a bunch of fats and proteins from the mama chicken's liver. Only the little disc ever had any chance of becoming a chicken, even if it had been fertilized.
• By eating the yolk you are, however, stealing candy from a baby. Unfertilized baby chicken, that is.
• Modern industrial techniques transform feed into eggs with better than 33% efficiency, and feed into chicken meat at better than 50% efficiency. That is, you can produce a pound of eggs from less than three pounds of feed, and a pound of (broiler) chicken from less than two.
• Egg color is totally unrelated to nutritional value or taste and is determined by the protein composition of the cuticle, which it the outermost layer (designed to slow water loss and block the entry of bacteria through the pores, at least initially).
• Rhode Island Reds lay brown eggs.
• Chinese Cochins lay eggs with yellow dots.
• Chilean Araucanas lay blue eggs.
• The cross between a Chilean Araucana and a Rhode Island Red lays green eggs.

-Max

 

--

Be pretty if you are,

Be witty if you can,

But be cheerful if it kills you.

 

If you're so evil, eat this kitten!