Posted in Science & Nature

Milk Tea

In many cultures, it is normal to drink black tea with milk (and sugar, depending on preference). The milk neutralises the acidity of tea and softens the bitterness of tannins, making the tea more palatable and easier on the stomach. This is especially for strong teas such as Assam tea. However, the downside is that there is some evidence that adding milk to tea reduces the beneficial effects from drinking tea, such as relaxing blood vessels and reducing risk of heart disease.

One of the timeless debates is whether to pour the tea or milk first when mixing the two. It is such a bitter topic that there are even recordings in literature of people using the phrase “rather milk in first” as an insult to another person.

George Orwell once published an article on making a perfect cup of tea and he claimed that adding milk to tea allowed you to regulate the amount of milk as you stir. Tea-first advocates also insist that pouring the tea first allows for more brewing time and increases the flavour of the tea.

The reason for milk-first is more scientific. In the early days of tea-drinking, most households did not own high-quality porcelain teacups. Cheap porcelain teacups were too thin to withstand the hot temperature of fresh tea and would crack. Pouring milk first cooled the tea and stopped this from happening. Therefore, pouring tea first was seen as a show of social status as you could afford high-quality teacups. The other main rationale for adding milk first is that the hot tea denatures proteins in milk, which can reduce the flavour and creamy texture of the milk.

To settle this old argument, British chemist Dr Andrew Stapley of the Royal Society of Chemistry undertook experiments to determine which is better from a scientific point of view. He concluded that it is indeed better to pour milk first then add tea. The reasoning is that when you add milk to tea, individual drops contact the tea and increases the surface area exposed to hot tea, denaturing more proteins. Ergo, adding tea to milk reduces this process and provides for a richer, creamier flavour.

At the end of the day, it really is just a cup of tea and you should drink it in whatever way you desire.

Posted in History & Literature

Dystopia

The following is an excerpt from the book Amusing Ourselves To Death by Neil Postman, where the author compares and contrasts two famous books depicting a dystopian society: Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.
What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who would want to read one.

Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.
Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism

Orwell feared the truth would be concealed from us.
Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.
Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the Feelies, the orgy porgy and the Centrifugal Bumble-puppy.

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions”.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, people are controlled by inflicting pain.
In Brave New World, people are controlled by inflicting pleasure.

In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. 
Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

(Source: http://www.totalitariers.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Brave-New-World-vs.-1984.jpg)

Posted in History & Literature

Ignorant Masses Policy

Democracy is a fair system that gives the people the power to run the country. This also weakens the politicians’ grip on the people. If you were a leader of a democratic nation, how could you gain more power? The obvious answer would be to become a good leader who gains the people’s trust and rules a government of the people, by the people, for the people. However, if you want to rule against the wishes of the masses yet not lose their trust, you can use the Ignorant Masses Policy.

The Ignorant Masses Policy is a type of policy that makes the people foolish to make ruling them easier. It was used by Imperial Japan to try make colonising Korea easier in the 1930’s, while also being famous as the policy of choice by Nazi Germany. The most classic example is the 3S Policy used by Japan and Korea in the 1980’s. “3S” stands for mankind’s never-ending interests: sex, screen and sports. The Policy uses these to enthuse the public and making them naturally lose interest over social issues. For example, in the 1980’s, the president of South Korea, Chun Doo-hwan (who rose to power through a coup d’état) hosted the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, while establishing pro baseball, pro football and pro ssireum (Korean wrestling). Furthermore, he installed colour television on a national level, lifted the curfew (promoting prostitution) and lessening censorship on sexually suggestive dramas and movies.

The Ignorant Masses Policy oppresses the people in the complete opposite way to the reign of terror seen in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Instead of destroying freedom, it provides even more freedom and information to drown out interest for the more important field of politics. This policy was well-represented in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. A government that oppresses its people with pleasure and distractions is far more formidable than a government that uses pain and control.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” ~ Goethe

Posted in History & Literature

Watchmen

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who will guard the guards?

One of the most basic instincts of a human being is to doubt. We do not easily extend our trust to strangers. This is a natural response that is very beneficial for your survival from an evolutionary perspective (consider the overfriendly dodos that were wiped out by humans). As civilisation has progressed and the size of societies grew, people devised legal systems to lower their vigilance against each other. This was because instead of wasting time being suspicious of others, we devised specialist roles who would do that for us, allowing us to live in peace with each other. These specialists who stay alert and guard us enforce the law and stabilise our society. However, what would happen if the people that protect us from evil become evil? Is it not a scary thought to think that there is no one that watches the watchmen?

Emperor Qin Shi Huang who united China to form the Qin dynasty divided up his people, setting up a mutual guard system to enforce his rule. Informing became a civil obligation. To not report illegal activities was illegal in itself. The system of informing was as follows: five families form a group with each group being watched by an official warden who reports on them. This official warden is carefully observed by an unofficial surveillant. Five groups come together to form a tribe. If it is found that at any level something was not reported, the blame was turned on every member of the group. Thus, a circle of surveillance is formed.

This method was extremely effective and Emperor Qin’s rule of terror was unstoppable. Crime rates plummeted while productivity rose. The problem was that the people’s quality of life was pathetic. Emperor Qin’s system of watching was later adopted by Nazi Germany. The people under the rule of the Nazis had to live in fear of being reported by their neighbours. This method is also seen being used by Big Brother in George Orwell’s novel 1984. Is this truly the best system to keep peace? Laws are put in place for the happiness and safety of the people, yet over-surveillance is an ironic concept that exists for those who hold power rather than the people.

How much should we trust another person? And who will watch the watchmen?