Summary of “Oliver Stone’s ‘Natural Born Killers’ Is, More than Ever, the Spectacle of Our Time”

“Natural Born Killers,” a brazenly radical movie when it was first released, on August 26, 1994, has never lost its sting of audacity.
I’ve met a number of people who feel the way I do about “Natural Born Killers,” but I’ve also run across a great many people who don’t.
The reaction has always been split between those I would call “Natural Born Killers” believers and those who thumb their noses at what they consider to be an over-the-top spectacle of Oliver Stone “Indulgence.” At the time of its release, it was said that the film was bombastic, gonzo for its own sake, pretentious as hell, and – of course ­- too violent.
If you go back and watch “Natural Born Killers” today, long after all the ’90s-version-of-film-Twitter chatter about it has faded, what you’ll see is that the movie summons a unique power that descends from the grandeur of its theme.
Far more than, say, “The Matrix,” “Natural Born Killers” was the movie that glimpsed the looking glass we were passing through, the new psycho-metaphysical space we were living inside – the roller-coaster of images and advertisements, of entertainment and illusion, of demons that come up through fantasy and morph into daydreams, of vicarious violence that bleeds into real violence.
I’ve always found “Natural Born Killers” a nearly impossible movie to nail down in writing.
His vision is suffused with irony, whereas Oliver Stone directs “Natural Born Killers” as if he were making a documentary about a homicidal acid trip.
In 1967, the tagline for “Bonnie and Clyde” was “They’re young. They’re in love. And they kill people.” The tagline for “Natural Born Killers” should have been: “They kill people. So they’ll have something to watch.”

The orginal article.

Summary of “Why Women Are Leading The Growing Natural Wine Movement”

Winemaker Sonja Magdevski describes the response she frequently receives despite having founded Casa Dumetz, one of the leading boutique labels in natural wine.
The Case for Natural Wines Wine deemed organic, biodynamic, sustainable, or natural-terms often used interchangeably-isn’t anything new.
David Falchek, executive director of the American Wine Society, says consumers increasingly expect purchases to reflect their values, “And wine is no exception.” Much like supporters of the craft beer scene, they want to know how their beverages are made, and often feel more drawn to small-batch producers with a feel-good narrative.
As Den Haan explains, there’s often a stigma that wine is for “Old rich stuffy white men with their cellars filled with Napa Cabs, and that’s just not the actual case of the industry.” Women outnumber men as the leading consumer of wine in both retail and restaurants, consuming 57 percent of bottles in the U.S, reports Nielsen.
At L.A.’s Botanica restaurant and wine shop in Silver Lake, co-owner Heather Sperling only sells natural wines, of which 30 percent are female-founded.
The Future is Female-Founded Women are leading organic wine into the mainstream, with more winemakers, bar owners, and estate founders, among other positions.
In 2013, Ann Rabin Arnold founded the Organic Wine Exchange, an organic wine club that’s now available in 13 states with a clientele that is 80 percent female.
In 2017, Stacey Khoury-Diaz, 29, opened Dio, a natural wine bar in Washington D.C. Khoury-Diaz welcomes an influx of millennial customers coming to her space, a strong majority women, who are eager to learn more about the growing sector.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Proof of Life: How Would We Recognise an Alien If We Saw One?”

It’s natural selection’s unwavering mantra – the contribution of genes to future generations – that allows for design to appear without a designer.
The only way to get design without a designer is natural selection.
Aliens must be the product of natural selection.
Natural selection follows certain rules, and can produce only certain kinds of organisms.
Are there exceptions? We can’t get complex life, even something as simple as a bacterium, without natural selection.
Even a postorganic, computer-based alien would ultimately be the product of a product of natural selection.
Even more problematic, their existence would likely be fleeting – without natural selection, they wouldn’t be able to cope with changes on their planet, and so would disappear before we found them.
How would we recognise an alien? It would include a hierarchy of entities, with the interests of each lower level aligned with components in levels above.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How To Understand Natural Disasters In A Climate Change Age”

Fires, floods, polar vortexes and hurricanes – every season brings another disaster seemingly linked to climate change.
Natural disasters happened before climate change, too.
Since the calamities aren’t going to stop anytime soon, we figured it’d be helpful to give you a guide for how to think empirically about disaster news in a climate change era.
They offered four tips for thinking about natural disasters and climate change – tips they say can make the difference between feeling hopeless about the future and finding ways to change it.
He’s literally written the book on climate change and disasters, and said that the “Disaster” label is about what happens when nature and people meet – not what nature does, alone.
It’s almost impossible to know how much of a disaster is caused by climate change.
Instead, try and think about whether climate change has increased the likelihood or severity of a type of disaster overall, said Melissa Allen-Dumas, a researcher at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory who focuses on climate change and critical infrastructure.
Knowing whether or not a particular hurricane would have happened if not for climate change doesn’t necessarily affect how you rebuild.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Trauma of Public Speaking and Other Reasons You Need Buddhism in Your Work Life”

In his 1994 book The Moral Animal, author and journalist Robert Wright explored everyday life through the lens of evolutionary psychology, suggesting that work crises and the accompanying fear and self-loathing are rooted in natural selection.
Wright recently sat down with Quartz At Work to talk about the ephemeral happiness of promotions, the trauma of public speaking, and the concern that too much mindfulness will cause workers to “Lose their edge.” This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
You get people with bizarre fears of projectile vomiting while speaking even though they’ve never done that.
Social anxiety is natural, evolutionary psychologists would say, because being held in high esteem seems to be correlated with genetic proliferation.
The trauma of public speaking is a good example of how evolutionary psychology helps illuminate the problem.
The impact on your work is that you spend less time counterproductively, and in meetings you’re more efficiently engaged.
According to Buddhism this pursuit involves the delusion that you can’t hang on to them, and that, too, is designed into us by natural selection.
You’re probably more likely to deal wisely with certain situations because you’re going to spend less time distracted by the way you’re reacting to them and more time evaluating them.

The orginal article.

Summary of “What Are Natural Foods?”

An Aristotelian account comes to this: foods similar to the foods that our ancestors ate in their natural environments are the foods that we are designed to flourish on.
Gradually, selection designed bodies to make good use of the natural foods available.
Critics of natural living sometimes stress that all this focus on our ancestral, natural environment is only sentimental yearning for a past paradise that never was.
A related objection goes, we humans and all we do have always been part of our own natural surroundings; we can’t understand our natural environment as something isolated from ourselves and our creations.
One reason is today’s lifestyle, which might throw off our natural reception of foods for which we’re designed.
Perhaps natural is superfluous? Can’t we just say ‘whole foods’? No. Skim milk is not a whole food: the cream, which rises to the top of natural milk, has been skimmed off.
Not all foods natural to cows or birds are natural to us.
These foods and foods like them, which now make up a significant part of US consumers’ caloric intake, often ‘resemble natural foods, but actually represent a radically new creation’, as the US physician David Ludwig writes – tacitly presupposing, by the way, the sort of context we’re looking for.

The orginal article.

Summary of “A Prescription for Awe”

In 1832, Buckland rounded off the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Oxford by entertaining his audience with another novel interpretation of an extinct monster: the Megatherium, or giant sloth.
In his 1836 “Bridgewater Treatise,” Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology, Buckland expounded at length on the ways in which divine oversight had prepared the earth as a suitable environment for humankind-right down to the geographical disposition of coal, iron ore, and limestone in the British Isles in ways suited to the needs of English capitalists.
Buckland’s efforts to advance science at Oxford proved to be no match for the conservative opposition.
In 1847, Buckland turned down an invitation to add his name to a list of supporters for a new Museum of Natural History at Oxford-a project he had once lobbied for enthusiastically, seeing the museum as a natural home for his ever-growing collections.
“Some years ago,” he replied to the invitation, “I was sanguine, as you are now, as to the possibility of Natural History making some progress at Oxford, but I have long come to the conclusion that it is utterly hopeless.”9 Buckland died in Islip in 1856, having taken no further part in his colleagues’ efforts to create the new museum.
Buckland’s once-longed-for Museum of Natural History was eventually built-the cornerstone was laid in 1855-and was nearing completion in the summer of 1860, when the British Association for the Advancement of Science was due, once again, to visit Oxford.
The advocates who took up the museum’s cause after Buckland stepped away prevailed only by doggedly reiterating his original argument-that the scientific study of nature was not merely compatible with, but genuinely supportive of, true religion.
Buckland would have been appalled by the pretensions of contemporary young “Earth Creationists” like Kentucky Creation Museum Founder Ken Ham, who claim that the history of life on earth can simply be read out of scripture with no regard for the findings of science.

The orginal article.

Summary of “A Prescription for Awe”

In 1832, Buckland rounded off the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Oxford by entertaining his audience with another novel interpretation of an extinct monster: the Megatherium, or giant sloth.
In his 1836 “Bridgewater Treatise,” Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology, Buckland expounded at length on the ways in which divine oversight had prepared the earth as a suitable environment for humankind-right down to the geographical disposition of coal, iron ore, and limestone in the British Isles in ways suited to the needs of English capitalists.
Buckland’s efforts to advance science at Oxford proved to be no match for the conservative opposition.
In 1847, Buckland turned down an invitation to add his name to a list of supporters for a new Museum of Natural History at Oxford-a project he had once lobbied for enthusiastically, seeing the museum as a natural home for his ever-growing collections.
“Some years ago,” he replied to the invitation, “I was sanguine, as you are now, as to the possibility of Natural History making some progress at Oxford, but I have long come to the conclusion that it is utterly hopeless.”9 Buckland died in Islip in 1856, having taken no further part in his colleagues’ efforts to create the new museum.
Buckland’s once-longed-for Museum of Natural History was eventually built-the cornerstone was laid in 1855-and was nearing completion in the summer of 1860, when the British Association for the Advancement of Science was due, once again, to visit Oxford.
The advocates who took up the museum’s cause after Buckland stepped away prevailed only by doggedly reiterating his original argument-that the scientific study of nature was not merely compatible with, but genuinely supportive of, true religion.
Buckland would have been appalled by the pretensions of contemporary young “Earth Creationists” like Kentucky Creation Museum Founder Ken Ham, who claim that the history of life on earth can simply be read out of scripture with no regard for the findings of science.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Has Wine Gone Bad?”

Advocates of natural wine believe that nearly everything about the £130bn modern wine industry – from the way it is made, to the way critics police what counts as good or bad – is ethically, ecologically and aesthetically wrong.
At a recent natural wine fair in London, I encountered winemakers who farmed by the phases of the moon and didn’t own computers; one man foraged his grapes from wild vines in the mountains of Georgia; there was a couple who were reviving an old Spanish technique of placing the wine in great clear glass demijohns outside to capture sunlight; others were ageing their wines in handmade clay pots, buried underground to keep them cool as their predecessors did in the days of ancient Rome.
Even more radically, it means jettisoning the expectations of mainstream wine culture, which dictates that wine from a certain place should always taste a certain way, and that a winemaker works like a conductor, intervening to turn up or tamp down the various elements of the wine until it plays the tune the audience expects.
In the 1990s, a quote attributed to the Bordeaux winemaker Bruno Prats began being repeated in the mainstream wine press and among wine investors like a sacred mantra: “There are no more bad vintages.” The implication was that advances in farming and winemaking technology had all but conquered nature.
The wine press tended to describe natural wine as if it were a minefield – with a few safe, conventional choices among a field of explosively bad bottles.
“Don’t make the mistake of thinking that just because a wine tastes different or unexpected that also means that it’s good”, the Telegraph’s wine critic Victoria Moore wrote in 2011, in an article titled “Be wary at the Natural Wine Fair”.
In early 2011, as the natural wine insurgency was growing, Sayburn invited Doug Wregg of Les Caves de Pyrene, one of the largest natural wine importers in the UK, to give an account of the style to a coterie of the nation’s wine elite at Vagabond, a small bar in west London.
“You need to be OK with losing some barrels, or to simply accept the wine you made.” Dubrey’s wine is fresh and very acidic, with a slight dusty earthiness – a long way from the density and power of the Château Palmer wines.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Has Wine Gone Bad?”

Advocates of natural wine believe that nearly everything about the £130bn modern wine industry – from the way it is made, to the way critics police what counts as good or bad – is ethically, ecologically and aesthetically wrong.
At a recent natural wine fair in London, I encountered winemakers who farmed by the phases of the moon and didn’t own computers; one man foraged his grapes from wild vines in the mountains of Georgia; there was a couple who were reviving an old Spanish technique of placing the wine in great clear glass demijohns outside to capture sunlight; others were ageing their wines in handmade clay pots, buried underground to keep them cool as their predecessors did in the days of ancient Rome.
Even more radically, it means jettisoning the expectations of mainstream wine culture, which dictates that wine from a certain place should always taste a certain way, and that a winemaker works like a conductor, intervening to turn up or tamp down the various elements of the wine until it plays the tune the audience expects.
In the 1990s, a quote attributed to the Bordeaux winemaker Bruno Prats began being repeated in the mainstream wine press and among wine investors like a sacred mantra: “There are no more bad vintages.” The implication was that advances in farming and winemaking technology had all but conquered nature.
The wine press tended to describe natural wine as if it were a minefield – with a few safe, conventional choices among a field of explosively bad bottles.
“Don’t make the mistake of thinking that just because a wine tastes different or unexpected that also means that it’s good”, the Telegraph’s wine critic Victoria Moore wrote in 2011, in an article titled “Be wary at the Natural Wine Fair”.
In early 2011, as the natural wine insurgency was growing, Sayburn invited Doug Wregg of Les Caves de Pyrene, one of the largest natural wine importers in the UK, to give an account of the style to a coterie of the nation’s wine elite at Vagabond, a small bar in west London.
“You need to be OK with losing some barrels, or to simply accept the wine you made.” Dubrey’s wine is fresh and very acidic, with a slight dusty earthiness – a long way from the density and power of the Château Palmer wines.

The orginal article.