Sleep

Sleep is another essential thing to the survival of humans. All of us do it...it is another thing that is just apart of our human nature. Thanks to many scientific sleep studies, scientists have come to agree that the recommended average amount of sleep someone should get in a night is 8 hours but as we age the recommended amount of hours changes. According to these studies the older we get the less we need.

Even though I am a psychology major because of personal experiences I am not as confindent that this is true. I felt like as a kid I had away more energy than I do now. Even watching youger kids I feel like they have more energy than I do. Also when my grandmother use to babysit she would fall alseep on the couch all the time. And it seemed as she got older she did it even more. As for myself now-a-days it doesn't seem to matter how many hours of sleep I get I am always tired and wishing that I could sleep longer. So based on what I have observed it seems to me that we need the exact opposite of what the studies say....as you get older you need more. Although babies do sleep alot so maybe it is more like a bell curve....as a baby you need a lot but as one goes through childhood you need less and then once you enter adolescents and continue to age you start to need more and more.

As I stated before it is definatley apart of our nature to sleep. Again it is need for survival...everyone has to sleep. And again the recommended amount of sleep is 8 hours. But we are all different and thus some of us need more or less sleep than others. So here is my question to you....

Question:

Knowing that it is apart of human nature to sleep why is it then that we all don't sleep the same? And because it is apart of our nature why do some of us have sleeping disorder???

Is Eating Animals A Form Of Cannibalism?

As well all know and have made known in class in science when things are categorized by kingdoms we are considered animals. So although we are not the same species we are considered to be a form of an animal. The definition of cannibalism- the eating of human flesh by another human being or the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind. I understand the definition but if one wants to get real technical because humans are considered animals when we eat one does that mean we are performing an act of cannibalism?

To me this is a very debatable question. I suppose if you were a meat eater you would say that it isn't cannibalism that it is "natural"...common and an accepted fact of human nature. And if you aren't a meat eater I would suppose that you may consider the cannibalism theory as true.

I do eat some meat but I am still not sure how I would answer this...I am kind of on the fence. I mean I do agree that it is "natural" to some degree. Humans and animals have be doing it since the beginning of time as a means of survival. Although we don't "need" to eat meat in order to survive many of us do not only because we like it but because we like a wider variety in our diet. But I also kind of agree with the cannibalism theory...(I am the one who brought it up).  So this brings us back to the debate of whether or not it is morally right to eat meat.

Question:

How do you feel regardless of whether you are a meat eater or not (although that fact may influence your answer) about this cannibalism theory I presented and why??

In response to Sean's question "What is the diving line between morals and ethics, or are they the same approach to the common question: What ought I/we do?"

To me they seem to mean the samething...or at least that's how may of us apply the two terms. Meaning many of us use the words interchangeably like synonyms of each other. Many fields of study have an ethics code which tells them what they can and can't do and why. And in some fields there are severe consequence for breaking the ethics code because it is "wrong".

Even the very popular Dictionary.com uses the word ethical in the definition of moral....

Moral- of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong: ethical

As you scroll further down the page this is what they have under synonym...

"Morals, ethics refer to rules and standards of conduct and practice. Morals refers to generally accepted customs of conduct and right living in a society, and to the individual's practice in relation to these: the morals of our civilization. Ethics now implies high standards of honest and honorable dealing, and of methods used, especially in the professions or in business."

I feel this clears up the difference a bit but I still feel that they go hand in hand....If it wasn't morals or ethics there wouldn't be a need for the other. If we didn't have morals...a sense of what's right and wrong would wouldn't have come up with ethics and ethics codes for different fields of study.

Question:

Do you too believe that without morals there couldn't be ethics or can we have one without the other???

In response to Mariah Key's question, "Religion doesn't play a role in every life, how has the presence or lack of religion effected your nature?"

To start I was raised with a religious background but as the church changed (and not for the better) we ended up leaving the church and don't practice the religion anymore. What really set us off was all the double standards the church had and how blunt they were sometimes. Now getting really into my personal life...my parents are divorced and of course the church knew that. Well one Sunday morning during the sermon the priest started talking about divorced people in general. His comment was and I quote, "Anyone apart of a divorced environment, (including the children) will automatically go to hell; there is nothing they can do to save themselves from this sin." It was after this comment we stood up in the middle of the sermon and walked out of the church and we haven't been back even though this was almost eight years ago. To me and the rest of my family this comment is crazy why should the children automatically be condemmed to hell for something their parents did. To be it doesn't automatically put the parents in hell either because sometimes you would be in an even bigger hell staying together.

Anyways, back to the question....I think to some degree the lack of religion in my life has made my nature better and in other ways its made it worse. I think it has made it better because I no longer have these religious rules that I have to live by. For example...come Easter time and thus lent I no longer have the church telling me what I should and shouldn't eat. It has also given some more free time...we I practiced we use to have to go to a class that they called CCD, like a Sunday school (except it wasn't always on Sunday's) and we would also have to go to the sermon on Sunday morning. And then of course there were the special services for hoildays and what not. The lack of religion has also saved money because it use to cost to sign up for the CCD classes and the church was always asking for donations. Have a lack of religion has allowed me to more freely live my life and not have to worry about committing a sin. But maybe this is a bad thing too because now I am not afraid to do silly things like swear once and awhile and other such things.

Although I no longer practice a faith I don't believe that religion is out of my life 100%. The reason for this is I still have many friends who practice some type of religion and thus I feel when I am around them I need to be concious of their beliefs and respect them. Also I still say "Bless You" when someone sneezes. Another way that it is still in my life is because I didn't make what Catholics call Confermation I can't get married in a Catholic church. The only way around that is to take some kind of class and promise that if I have kids that I would raise them as Catholics. To me it's a lot of mombo jombo.

Question:

How do you feel about the concepts of heaven and hell???