Is that an Elephant in the Room, or is it my gargantuan shadow?

As we near the end of the semester, if I had to select one fundamental principle; it is precisely that; fundamental principles.  Many authors embrace topics yet negate first principles.  E.g., whenever we are discussing how to make changes or improvements to an existing system or infrastructure, we want to examine the nature of the act in question.   E.g., in a recent article on CNN entitled, “Skip the Meat on Earth Day” John Sutter discusses the efficiency of animal agriculture absent any consideration for the animals.  As for this idea of first principles, he dismissed any such concerns with one sentence; “Animal rights aside.”  This is unsatisfactory; grossly deficient.

We cannot be flippant on matters of life and death.   It is the duty of all rational beings to thoroughly examine first principles in all facets of our day-to-day lives.   In the above example, billions of thinking and feeling animals are slaughtered every year for our tastes.  Human ingenuity seems to have outwitted us.   Before we invent and implement self-described, clever solutions to our current practices - it behooves us to examine necessary antecedents; i.e., ought we to be killing animals at all?   In the above case, we have to ask, (i) ought we to be negating the lives of animals, and (ii) do we negate our own lives, limiting our potential in the process?

How much of what we think we think is really what we think?

Is advertising simply a means of entertainment, or is there something more psychologically sinister at work in the day to day jingles, images, and slogans, that permeate nearly every facet of our lives? 

More than 30 companies spent over 1 Billion on advertising last year.  Proctor and Gamble alone spent over 4 Billion.  Common sense and inductive reasoning confirms that advertising works.  So, who creates all the ads that blur by our Humean ‘bundles of perceptions’? 

It’s slightly more complex than a group of art students with an idea.  Psychologists, Neuroscientists, and lawyers, construct the ads we view and hear daily.  The following is from Nielson Inc.

“When time is money, every second counts. Our brains react to marketing in milliseconds. They’re so in tune with what’s going on around us that the feelings that guide our behavior exist within our subconscious well before we’re even aware of them. Since time is of the essence, it’s important to pinpoint which aspects of your marketing materials are the most provocative. Through our comprehensive, consumer neuroscience research, we do just that.
By studying people at their most fundamental level—by measuring brainwaves—we provide a real-time view of their subconscious reactions. Using proprietary technology that applies neuroscientific techniques to market research, we provide insight into every aspect of your marketing material. We measure real-time responses at both the conscious and subconscious levels, resulting in specific and actionable recommendations that can be implemented immediately.
The value of this research extends across the marketing spectrum—from ads to aisles and from food to finance. Our work for a broad cross-section of Fortune 100 category leaders speaks for itself, demonstrating the value that consumer neuroscience can have for virtually every business.”

How does this type of invasive technology, (if we deem it so), influence how we think and feel? 

This kind of research begs many questions, e.g.,
What precisely is the difference between a ‘food animal’ and an ‘animal’?
Have advertisers systematically disenfranchised the self from the self; have they duped us into consuming subscriptions of artificial and empty designations?

Active thinking is a rigorous process of examination and inquiry into the origins of all things.   Advertisers are betting on us to abandon logic and common sense in favor of passive receptivity.  Are we a nation with schizophrenic tendencies gambling away our free-will, liberty, impulse, and desire, in exchange for stuff?