Science

Two interesting articles in the June Smithsonian; Defying the Nazis and Predicting the Pandemic.

The first, Defying the Nazis, recounted the story of Paul Rivet, a French anthropologist who openly disagreed with the racist ideas promoted by many anthropologists of the time (and adopted by Hitler and the Nazi party) which was used to justify the murder of the Jews, and the belief in the superiority of the Aryan race.  As is usual about so many Smithsonian articles, this small bit of history is generally unknown by most people, as it was by me.  Rivet went on to not only fight the racism endemic in the belief of certain races being inferior to others, but was a key figure in the early creation of the French underground movement, and in fact, the naming of that movement; the Resistance.

The second tells the story of the 1957 pandemic that killed 1.1 million people worldwide, and infected about 20 million Americans, leading to 116,00 deaths.  Similar to the current coronavirus plaguing our planet, this strain also emerged from China and was a strain unlike any which humans had encountered before.  The difference however, is that a man named Maurice Hilleman, an American microbiologist who was in charge of influenza monitoring at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, saw the virus coming and prepared the United States ahead of time.  Hilleman arranged for the US military to ship samples of the pathogen from Hong Kong to his lab in Washington DC, a task which enabled him to identify the H2N2 strain as a unique pathogen.

Initially, however, Hilleman's warnings were ignored by the US Public Health Service.  Eerily similar to our reaction to the novel coronavirus today, people and health organizations had become complacent in their understanding of the deadly power of such aggressive influenza strains, and so his warnings were for naught.  Fortunately, he sent his samples to the 6 biggest pharmaceutical companies directing them to produce a vaccine for the new flu, which they did, such was his clout and reputation in the industry.  When the virus hit America's shores in the fall of 1957, as Hilleman had predicted, America was soon armed with a vaccine due to his persistence, and upwards of 30 million Americans were inoculated during that year's flu season, saving hundreds of thousands of lives.

While I did not do the research, I would imagine that this lesson may have resulted in the eventual formation of the CDC and other such agencies, whose job it is to identify, study, disseminate information about, and provide guidance to fight such diseases.

Stories such as Frankenstein, address both our admiration and fear of the power of science.  We dearly hope that our scientists can find cures for such horrible diseases as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, etc, while fearing that the power of science might be used for nefarious or violent means.  No topic better illustrates such hope and fear than nuclear power which has been used to provide clean energy, yet also to kill thousands of people in one second.

Scientists themselves often find themselves caught between the realization that their research can be used for both good and evil, but rather than engaging among themselves and with the public to determine the right path, they allow politicians and business people to find uses for their inventions, uses which too often run contrary to the good of the public. 

Paul Rivet, whom that first article was about, did not abdicate his responsibility to speak out when he saw anthropological evidence used by the Nazis to power their evil agenda, while Maurice Hilleman used his knowledge to spur the development of a vaccine which saved countless lives despite being told he was an extremist and doomsayer for predicting the deadly nature of the virus he had studied.

In the last few days, we surpassed 10 million cases worldwide, 500,000 deaths due to COVID-19.  Here is America, while we have only documented over 2.5 million cases (compared to 20 million in 1957-58), we have already experienced more deaths than what was, at the time, the 2nd worst epidemic in America's history.  

However, and it is a big HOWEVER, the virus didn't wait until the fall to start killing people, it began right away, in the Spring.  And it is still spreading, alarmingly so, despite the heat of the summer.  And, a vaccine, while perhaps only 6 months away, will not provide us with any relief through at least half of the next flu season.  And, worst of all, it is beginning to spread through countries with dense populations and countries with far less advanced medical facilities than Western Europe and the US.  We are currently experiencing a million new cases every week, worldwide and the rate is accelerating.  40 million by year's end?

But even scarier, this virus seems far more deadly than any we have seen before.  Even if we were to assume that there have been 4-5 cases for every case that has been identified, the death rate is upwards of 10 times higher than a normal flu.  2 million deaths by year's end?

It is crystal clear to this writer, that Donald J Trump has failed America on two fronts.  First, his apparent disdain for the science of infectious disease, especially when it interferes with his selfish desire to win reelection no matter the price.  And second, his utter inability to understand that health comes before money and a strong economy.  Both fatal flaws are on display with his single minded need to hold rallies to appease his ego.  In essence, he and his entourage are becoming the super seeders of COVID-19, spreading the virus into America's heartland, while he publicly demonstrates his lack of even the most basic trait of a good leader, to lead by example, or in his case, by leading by no example as illustrated by his refusal to wear a mask which in turn, allows his ardent followers to do the same.

Finally, it is this disdain for science that has resulted in going on 4 more years of lost time in addressing climate change.  Four more years of doing nothing, and in some cases, making it worse.  If science can truly save us from ourselves before climate change fully impacts the Earth, we will need to decide as a country and as a planet, to seek the best science, throw out the chaff from the wheat, and elect leaders who respect the answers it can provide while employing those solutions for the betterment of all of us.

The Ongoing Protests

As we mark the 2-week anniversary of the beginning of the protests which resulted from the brutal murder of George Floyd, I thought I would re-post the story I wrote in late 2018 called The Switch Back which presents a version of the age old story of a person or people finding themselves in an unfamiliar body with the same mind.  

I present it here with the caveat that, like past protests against racial inequality, unfair treatment by the judicial system and the general disadvantages of being a non-white person in America, this current wave of protests will end.  The question isn't, was there justification in all the marching and proposed policy changes and endless speechifying, but will anything actually change?  We have seen all too often that public outcries and politicians making impassioned pleas for legislation, have a limited shelf life until the next crisis or disaster or seminal event leaps onto the stage.

In the story which follows, actual change does begin to occur, because the "event" lasts longer than a few days or weeks.  Time passes but the evidence lingers beyond the normal attention span of the average news cycle.  It makes me think that any movement, or attempt to change society on a large scale, needs longevity, even more so than repeated bursts.  Clearly, this is true concerning our desperate need for violence control in the area of gun law reforms since repeated events have done very little to create stricter gun laws.  In fact, we seem to have gone backwards on that front, if you accept that protesters armed with rapid fire weapons while protesting a stay at home order to battle a national health crisis, are an acceptable sight on the steps of a state capital.

Is it just too late for the boomer generation to learn the lessons of the injustice of police (and everyday white people) who view black men as animals who need to be controlled and dominated, just as it appears it is too late for us to have learned the tragic lessons of our love affair with guns and violence as played out in the all too familiar occurrence of mass shootings, as well as the daily carnage which claims far too many American lives?

I have faith that the generation of my children will make progress on both of these fronts, but alas, have little hope that the generation of my peers will renounce its selfishness and address its deep rooted faults.

I include a link to the this story, below, as well as the story itself.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-switch-back.html

                                    
                                   The Switch Back


The day before was like any other day. People went to work, got married, had babies. Athletes and actors performed on TV, the mail was delivered, school was in session. Trains and planes ran on time, dogs were walked in the parks, children played in schoolyards and in the streets. Armies waged war, politicians did, whatever it is they do.

Then came the Switch.

In fact, as a percentage of the world’s population, it was barely 10%. But, for those who experienced it, the shock was devastating. And, as if it was controlled by a purposeful hand, it effected the rich and powerful at an alarming rate.

The Switch barely touched Africa. The Polar Regions and most of Indonesia were spared. Few people in South and Central America were changed, but many in North America, especially the United States experienced it. Europeans were also inordinately altered. Oddly, every United Nations representative, every head of state, every religious leader (excepting the Dali Lama), almost every person of influence was switched overnight.

But this wasn’t a science fiction inspired alien body snatching plot. This switch involved individual race and gender. Those that were white became black and vice versa. Those that were male became female, and again, vice versa. Overnight, the make-up of the world’s movers and shakers changed from white male to black female. On the outside. Internally, those who were changed were the same person as before. The same experiences, the same background, the same ambition and intelligence, just a new exterior.

The first few days after the Switch, the world paused. What did this mean? Was it a message from God? Explanations were offered, everything from an end of the world precursor to an environmental cause to an alien plan to disrupt the fabric of humanity. But, as the days became weeks, then months, it became clear that there was no explanation that would suffice; it was time to take stock, adjust and move on.

Then, slowly, proposals for change began to emerge. The hidden biases of the financial world were brought to light. The income gap between genders was addressed. The percentage of poverty among minorities and women was prioritized. The dominance of history that had been justified as resulting from the natural superiority of the white male was redefined as the consequence of better education, better opportunity, better resources.

As time passed, the world settled into a new paradigm. Certainly, there were some who merely exchanged the belief in their new appearance’s supremacy for their old. Why were they picked for the Switch, they argued, except due to the fact that they were more loved, more special in the eyes of the Creator. But for most, the new dominance of those decidedly not white, not male, was seen as an opportunity to rise or fall without obstacles, on the merits of their hard work, integrity and perseverance. Skin color, gender, became less important, less cared about.

And then came the Switch Back. Again, it was as sudden as the Switch; overnight. Everything was as it had been. The white male was back in charge, the majority of those in power, those with influence.

Again, the world paused. Had it been a global hallucination? Did it really happen? It quickly became obvious that no pictures, no physical evidence of the Switch existed. It was if the lessons learned in the past nine months were meant to be remembered via faith alone, without tangible proof.

Without hard evidence, there were some who preferred not to remember. They introduced bills and trumpeted calls to reverse some of the changes that had transpired, changes that had almost eliminated the prejudices of race and gender that had plagued the world before the Switch. There were even some religious leaders that claimed the Switch Back should be interpreted as a return to the normal, an admittance that the experiment of the Switch was unsuccessful.

Now, a mere 30 days since the Switch Back the debate continued. On one side, the forces of those who chose to ignore the lessons of the Switch. Those who were more comfortable with their age old belief in the preeminence of the white male. On the other side were those that had internalized the changes that the Switch inspired. Those who believed that the Switch was meant to nudge humanity towards a true equality.

Only time would tell which side would prevail. And whether the lessons of the Switch would be maintained or ignored by the reality of the Switch Back.

How we Saved/Lost the Planet

Tremendous National Geographic edition for April.  One half told the optimist's guide to life on Earth in 2070 (How we Saved the World) and the other half reflected the pessimist's guide to life on Earth in 2070 (How we Lost the Wold).  Each detailed the successes and failures of the next 50 years, along with the same for the past 50 years since the first Earth Day in 1970, all adding up to a planet that will be user friendly or quite hostile to human life, depending on one's perspective.

I read the optimist's guide first, which in retrospect was a poor choice.  It might have been more helpful to be left with a positive viewpoint rather than negative, especially in light of the current pandemic. 

The overriding sense of optimism which was portrayed, was heavy on the fact that many of the dire predictions of the 1970's did not come true.  The boom in farmland productivity forestalled the fear that our growing world population would result in mass starvation.  In fact, there is less food insecurity on the planet than in 1970, as well as an increase in the average time in a classroom, a higher percentage of people with access to clean water, a higher proportion of people with access to electricity, an increase in the overall live expectancy, and a decline in the maternal mortality rate. 

In addition to few of the cataclysmic predictions coming true, there has been a dramatic increase in the conversion to cleaner energy sources.  Renewable sources of energy has surpassed coal in America and is about on par with nuclear, trailing only natural gas, with the expectation that by 2050, clean energy production will equal even that booming industry.

But the biggest reason to be confident is that the generation that is agitating for even more attention to be paid to climate change, is the youngest generation today.  Worldwide movements inspired and often led by people in their teens and 20's, are not only educating the rest of us about the science of climate change, but will soon be the generation in power.  I wrote a story about 6 1/2 years ago called The Next Greatest Generation.  While it didn't address climate change specifically, it did detail the achievements of (perhaps) the next greatest generation (born since the year 2000), a generation which addressed the problems of humanity as adults, unlike the generation in charge today.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-next-greatest-generation.html

On the flip side, how we might lose the planet is not hard to fathom.  We see evidence of it today as the forces of nationalism (America First, for instance), trump the power of cooperation that will be required to defeat any challenge, whether it be COVID-19 or climate change. Without the achievements of a next greatest generation, humanity will be assailed with higher daily as well as record temperatures, an exponential increase in energy use to cool us which might outstrip the gains we make in using greener sources of energy, rising water anxiety as coastal cities begin to face the result of their insatiable plans  for development on ground that is both too close to the oceans and had previously been a buffer to protect the land from rising sea levels, less potable water as our aquifers are less able to recharge themselves due to over use or ground water pollution from fossil fuel extractions, and far more severe weather occurrences which will produce longer and hotter fire seasons, stronger and more frequent hurricanes and tornadoes.  And, of course, the poor will more be more likely to suffer the consequences of our actions resulting in the retraction of the gains made to reduce poverty since 1970, plus the addition of an even higher percentage of people living in poverty due to the ravages of the changing climate.

Yikes!

In any event, whether you tend to be positive or negative about the next 50 years, or most likely, waver between the two as information is gained, opportunities lost, I would recommend procuring a copy of the April edition of Nat Geo.  There is a lot to learn from both perspectives.

   

COVID-19 protests and syncretism

Happy Earth Day, albeit a bit late.  Sorry.  After 4 weeks of being paid not to work, I was declared an essential worker a few weeks ago.  Worked 11 out of 12 days at one point to get things in order for my staff to execute the various (and changing) requirements as directed by my employer.  To be honest, I enjoyed being home for those four weeks, despite the restrictions about going out.  While I imagine I may continue to work for another 5 years, I could also easily imagine not working at all, or at least not full time, sooner than that. 

It was especially disappointing that the planned celebrations and marches that would have occurred to mark the 50th anniversary of Earth Day were spoiled.  I would have enjoyed seeing millions of people all over the planet expressing their happiness and frustration (depending on the location) with the progress we have made in the past 50 years in terms of recognizing the importance of acting in harmony with nature rather than against it, and in our battle to limit the damage that the changing climate will wreck upon the Earth.  While it might be a stretch to link the current crisis related to the coronavirus to climate change, it is not outlandish to recognize that our arrogance as it relates to our relationship with the plants and animals that share this planet with us, will be causal in future calamities, whether they be from weather or bacteria.

One type of demonstration that did occur in the last week, was protests against the stay at home orders currently in place in various states.  As one Republican Governor said, I respect my constituents rights to express their opinions, but I wish they were a bit more responsible in doing it, referring to those who failed to observe social distancing or wear masks in public, or who were just obnoxious in how they directed their frustration.  We will never know how many of those protesters spread the virus, or contracted it in their misguided expression of their rights, but we do know that some of them, either directly or perhaps through a family member, were spared the difficult days of dying from COVID-19 because of the very orders that were enacted by the governors they protested against.  It is one of the great ironies of life, that all people benefit from sound, sensible, science based policies, whether they be to reduce acid rain, keep our air and water clean, guarantee our food supply is safe, or help reduce the spread of a dangerous pathogen, even those who fight tooth and nail against those policies.

One of the books I purchased for my wife for Christmas was "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" by Yuval Noah Harari.  I found it a thoroughly enjoyable read, humorous, thought-provoking, illuminating even.  I was especially surprised by the advancements in our understanding of the history of humans as related to the timeline of our ancestors.  When I was young, all the extinct species of mankind, were believed to be more like precursors to us, or at least that is how I remember it.  "Sapiens" tells a much different story about how the various types of ancient man, including Neanderthal, were less ancestors than competing species.  Harari indicated that my understanding that one species followed another is wrong; multiple species existed at once.  Evolution took place, not in a linear way but with overlapping lines of existence, until one, Sapiens, won out over the others.

But the concept that particularly struck me, a concept with which I was not familiar, is syncretism.  In a nutshell, syncretism is the amalgamated or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures or schools of thought.  Sort of like the melting pot theory, in that the end result is the elimination of the original in its purest existence for a new entity which combines the old with the new influences. 

What I found fascinating about the idea is that it is the process itself, the ongoing subtle changes that lead to the end of one paradigm to another, similar, but different paradigm, that causes so much of the friction that we see in society.  So many of today's 2nd and 3rd generation Americans forget that when their ancestors came to America with their foreign cultures, food, customs, etc, there was much backlash against them for trying to change America.  They were ostracized, forced to live in slums with their own kind, barred from certain jobs and shops while being funneled to perform the functions of society that the "native" population wouldn't do.

Just as with those early 20th century immigrants, we see the same thing playing out today as people from south of the border are forced to take jobs that today's Americans won't do, jobs that, unfortunately in light of COVID-19, put them at even higher risk to die as they process our meat and poultry, pick our fruits and vegetables, and take care of our elderly.  We fail to link the deaths of the immigrants of yesteryear who died building our bridges and skyscrapers, died in the bowels of the earth digging out coal and other precious metals, or died in the work place accidents that plagued the textile industry and other business where long hours, low pay, and unsafe conditions were prevalent with those happening today, because we refuse to see how our mistreatment of today's immigrants mirrors the mistreatment of the true natives of this continent, or the slaves we ripped from their homes in Africa to labor on our plantations, or the immigrants who sacrificed so that us, their ancestors, could live a better life.

I would imagine a similar blindness will occur in 50 years hence, when today's successful immigrant families, treat the next wave of newcomers with little regard.

Syncretism might also be at work in the strange interpretation of who a free people should take direction (orders) from.  Clearly, America was built on the idea that no foreign government shall dictate what we can or can't do.  From there, an almost DNA like resistance to a strong government presence in our lives has evolved, so that at once we exhort the values of individualism and being self made, while running at breakneck speed for state or federal assistance when the shit hits the fan.  I don't know for a fact how many of the protesters at the various state capitals were unemployed, but I would imagine that a large percentage of them were receiving money from some type of assistance program, either unemployment, or small business assistance, or perhaps being paid to stay home like I was.  If I were to suggest that they go out to one of the meat packing plants and fill in for a sick worker, or take a job at a local grocery store, or delivery service rather than take any assistance, would that not be in line with their view of themselves as individuals with inalienable rights?  I would imagine that many people did just that, rather than taking government money and driving to protest a government stay at home order. 

But what I really mean by syncretism at work is the fact that we take orders from business all the time.  We follow the rules of our employer, even when those rules might seem arbitrary or unfair.  We follow the rules of business that encourage us to buy the newest or latest or most best, whether we actually need the item or not.  And we follow the rules of capitalism which require us to consume more and more, leaving us with high debt and little savings.  I am fortunate in that my employer allows me to accumulate sick and vacation time, so that if I were to need an extended leave of absence, I will receive my full salary.  But most people do not have this luxury, are told to use it or lose it, and when they truly need an extended period of time off, are forced to accept a percentage of pay through disability, or use their savings fund, if they have one. 

We have created a belief system that encourages us to protest against any kind of government directive which we believe contradicts our pursuit of happiness, while accepting all manners of restrictions to that very happiness in the guise of being good employees, or good consumers, or even patriotic Americans.

Throw in those who believe that God will protect them personally from this virus, or enable America to survive and recover, and we have a conglomeration of beliefs that hold sacred the might and sanctity of the individual, while sacrificing all types of freedoms to the will of business, the economy, capitalism, our leaders, and the concept that God will protect us, in the end.

Finally, I reread my last reference to the COVID-19 crisis.  In that post, I calculated that upwards of 75,000 Americans would die by the fall while stating that I didn't think this a dire prediction, only reflective of the trend of the time.  Obviously, and unfortunately, I will probably be wrong.  We will have lost 70,000 American lives this week, perhaps 100,000 by end of month or very early June.  At some point in June, more people will have died from this virus than American soldiers in the first World War. I have said in a previous post that we underestimated this virus from the start, and loss of life was inevitable.  In light of the protests against policies that have saved countless lives, I imagine that even earlier action would not have prevented thousands of deaths.  But it sure would be nice if we could demand from our leaders an explanation as to why our choice is death from disease or a dying economy.  I would think that if we truly our the greatest country in the history of the world, we would have been able to find a third option. 






 

 



   

         

Fighting our instincts

Before beginning this post, I reread my entry from March 24th, which was my first post about the coronavirus.  At that time, I had noted that there were about 400,000 cases of COVID-19 in the world, 17,500 confirmed deaths.  Here in the US, it was the first day we had lost 100 Americans to the virus, our largest loss of life up till then.  I had surmised that this record would, unfortunately, continue to be broken, and that we might expect 1 million cases worldwide by the beginning of April.

As of this morning, we are over 2 million cases worldwide, with over 135,000 dead.  In America, just in the last 2 days, almost 5 thousand people died.  We have over 600,000 confirmed cases, and will have lost 30,000 Americans to the virus by day's end.  In just 3 weeks, worldwide deaths have increased almost by 8 times, and the 1,000 deaths in America is now pushing 30,000, and all this despite the devastating economic damage being caused by the almost nationwide stay-at-home orders!

It is not inconceivable that the world might see 100 million cases by the fall of this year with over 1 million people dead.  I imagine that America will account for 5 million of those cases, perhaps as many as 75,000 deaths.  I don't consider this an alarmist position, or some kind of end-of-the world prediction, as those numbers come no where near the infection and death rates of the Spanish pandemic of 1918-20.  While there are similarities in that the pandemic of the early 20th century spread rapidly due to a lack of herd immunity across the globe, and was not well understood, both points being true of this current virus, our understanding of mitigation and our acceptance to engage in this approach, plus the advantages of world wide cooperation to battle the disease, bodes well for less sickness and death in this instance. 

Remember, the Spanish flu infected upwards of 500 million people in the world, and killed upwards of 50 million people, depending on the data you believe.  But it occurred during WW1, when the world, already reeling from the horrors of trench warfare, mustard gas poisonings, and daily death counts from the war in the thousands, was not focused on the disease.  Despite the occasional petty quarrels we are experiencing recently in regards to who did or didn't do what, when, for the most part the world is working together to stop the spread.  We won't see the kind of appalling numbers that transpired 100 years ago, because we are aware of the danger, and have implemented a course of action.  

The Spanish flu, did not originate in Spain, its name came from the fact that the Spanish press reported on it as there was a concerted effort to suppress information about the flu by most countries.  The world was at war so distrust between countries was prevalent, and leaders were concerned that the masses might either lose interest in fighting a war, or panic over the spread of the disease, or both.

This is where our instincts can become an obstacle.

We hear about a new strain of flu in a far away land, and we dismiss it.  Not just because it seems so far removed, but because we have witnessed other possible virus scares, the bird flu, the swine flu, even ebola, which turned out to be serious but contained.  We believe in modern medicine, we believe we are smarter than people were 100 years ago, we believe that a pandemic can't happen in modern times, or can't happen in America, or can't happen to me and my family.  Call it a defense mechanism, call it an integral part of our DNA which keeps us living as opposed to worrying about dying, our instincts tell us that the threat is overblown. 

We see that only 100 people have died and think, well that is an infinitesimal percentage of the population, no problem.  Then it is a 1000, and well, still a low percentage. Then it is 10,000, and well, that is less than car crashes, and then it is 25,000, and well, that is a normal flu season.  Like the frog in water that is slowly brought to boil, we fail to see the trend, or fail to think that the trend will reach our homes.  I am sure that when it reaches 60,000, more than the Vietnam War, more than the Korean War, some will say, well, that is the cost of war, whether against a foreign enemy or a virus.  I imagine that should we approach the death toll of WW1, a bit over 115,000, there will be some who will cite the population percentage, and, well, that wasn't so bad either.

When an animal senses a fire, it runs in the opposite direction, as its survival instinct kicks in.  I would certainly not deny that the human animal doesn't react similarly, but I do believe that our ego, our over active sense of self, does interfere with this natural tendency to flee.  Simply stated, if we were told that terrorists were randomly roaming the streets killing everyone they encountered, that 30,000 Americans had been killed in such a way in the last month, and that these terrorists could not be recognized by site, we might instinctively stay at home, stay at a distance from others, keep our children near us, isolate those least able to defend themselves. 

COVID-19 is such a terrorist, yet it is invisible.  It will infect us through our friends, neighbors, co-wokers, and family, so we resist the urge to flee.  We even, at times, challenge the direction to avoid contact, as if it is our right to be infected and then to infect our loved ones.  Especially in America, but true of most countries which value freedom, our instinct to resist being told what to do wins out over what should be our desire to survive.

I have not hidden my opinion of President Trump.  Regardless of that perspective, I would like to think that my evaluation of his devotion to his instincts is accurate.  He has listened to them all his life and they have served him well.  Financially secure, held in high esteem by millions of people, one of only 45 men to hold the title of President of the United States.  Taken in combination with my belief that Americans are already predisposed to doubt the malignant nature of a virus, President Trump's high regard for his ability to sniff out an opportunity and avoid a danger, easily explain why he hesitated to fully embrace the danger of this virus. 

This is not to say he didn't make some good decisions.  But he had to fight his instincts to make them.  His instinct that America is strong because of our economy.  His instinct that the voting public would care more about the economy than its health.  His instinct that taking advice from others is a sign of weakness.  His instinct that "experts" in the various governmental bureaus and agencies did not like him.  His instinct that loyalty is more valuable than competency. 

I know that some of this sounds like criticism of the president, and perhaps it is, but I am attempting to communicate that his very strengths as perceived by his advocates, are the obstacles he must overcome to lead America through this crisis, just as some of the virtues of the American people, self-reliance, resistance to authority, belief that nothing bad can happen to America since God is on our side, are becoming obstacles to fighting the spread of this malady.

President Trump's biggest flaw is his inability to admit when he makes a mistake.  Someone who does everything perfectly, will never examine the results of his actions, and therefore can not learn to improve his future decisions.  And perhaps too, that is America's biggest flaw. 

We have made the mistake of continuing the belief in employer provided health care, and now see how an economic downturn creates a double whammy for Americans who are unemployed, especially during a health crisis. 

We have made the mistake of putting all our eggs in the basket of consumerism, and now find ourselves facing the consequences of a population and a business community with a woefully inadequate ability to withstand an emergency; very little savings and limited ability to access loans or grants. 

We have made the mistake of increasing deficit spending during the greatest economic surge in our history, and now face an explosion of national debt to prevent a deep recession. 

We continue to support policies that widen income inequality, tax cuts that favor the rich, corporate welfare at the expense of small businesses, laws that reward tax avoidance by the most wealthy individuals and business entities, and will soon see how the rich were buying at rock bottom prices during this downturn while the rest of America saw their meager savings depleted, and the foundation of their financial futures cracked.

The good news is that we have learned from the mistakes made during the pandemic of 1918-20.  We will lose less global citizens to COVID-19.  Whether we address the mistakes we have made in the past 40 years which have created such an imbalance in the distribution of wealth and our ability to address, and recover from an emergency, is not as certain.

Saving Mountain Gorillas, and Ourselves

An interesting article in the April edition of the Smithsonian about mountain gorillas.  Mountain gorillas appeared in our collective consciousness with the publication of primatologist Dian Fossey's book entitled "Gorillas in the Mist" (and the film of the same name 5 years later), in which she detailed the plight of these majestic creatures who share 98% of their DNA with mankind.  The fact that her research indicated that gorillas in general, and this sub-species in particular were one of the most maligned animals in the world, was starkly confirmed when she was murdered, not by one of her subjects, but by human poachers whose illegal activity (and murderous treatment of the mountain gorilla) was revealed by Fossey.  One particular poignant quote from her book is

"After more than 2,000 hours of direct observation, I can account for less than 5 minutes of what might be called aggressive behavior". 

Quite a big difference between her research and the commonly held opinion by most people concerning a gorilla's disposition and behavior.

The main point of the article is to provide good news about the mountain gorilla, in that the world population of these animals has increased, perhaps by 4 times, since Fossey began her work in the early 1980's.  While that sounds impressive, we are talking about a population today of roughly 1000 animals, but even that low number, when broken down by the number of fertile females and babies, is enough to move the status of the mountain gorilla from critically endangered to endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.     

How did this come about?

The article cites two main reasons.  First, since animals do not respect national boundaries, the work by conservation groups and the governments of Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to establish and link various national parks and reserves to provide the mountain gorilla with a continuous habitat (about 300 square miles) was a good beginning.   But more importantly, those from outside the communities began to allow those villagers who live in proximity of the gorillas to participate in the decisions about how to best protect both the animals and the livelihood of those who depend on the land for survival.  In short, change the dynamic so that the local populations perceived the gorillas in a positive manner as opposed to competitors. 

When a village raises cattle and hunts for bush meat for its survival, and believes that a gorilla will negatively effect those efforts, it is very easy to facilitate the capture and removal of a gorilla.  But when a gorilla guide can earn more than a poacher, or when selling produce to the local lodge which houses tourists is easier than selling it on the streets, or when working at or managing that hotel pays more and is less tenuous than herding cattle, then people will be more willing to protect the reason behind their new economic opportunities.  It becomes a beneficial relationship; a win-win so to speak.

Additionally, as the article plainly states, "Poor people are drawn into insurgent militias for economic reasons.  They just want a better life".  So, providing the villagers with an alternative to illegal and/or terrorist activities for their income, becomes a double win-win as it reduces the violence of the area as well, which is especially important in the DRC which has been ravaged by civil strife for decades.

Which brings us to Sapiens. 

While it is not fair to extrapolate the actions of a handful of villagers in Africa to all of mankind, I don't think it is a stretch to identify our need for security, a better life, or economic advancement as relatively universal desires.  We extol those ambitions via our glorification of individualism and self reliance, despite condemning it in those who find it critical to cross a border to seek it out for themselves and their families.  And, sadly, we too often attach the accumulation of large sums of wealth, wealth beyond the needs of oneself or one's family, as a laudable goal, despite the consequences for many other people that result when too much wealth resides in too few hands.

Still, if we agree that the carrot of an economic uplift can alter perspectives and actions, then can we apply this theory to two pressing situations; battling COVID-19 and addressing climate change.

It is no surprise that almost instantaneously with the beginning of the various decisions by mayors and governors to enact guidelines for social distancing which resulted in the shuttering of businesses, there were those who cried foul, that we can't allow our economy to go down with the virus battling ship.  And while it was easy to discount those objections when they came from the rich and influential, CEO's and political pundits who might suffer economically but not to the point that they would lose their home or stand in a food line, it was easy to understand the everyday person who lives paycheck to paycheck and now faced the very real possibility of not having an income for 2 months. 

How do we apply the lessons of convincing a villager that the gorilla up the hill is an ally when we believe that the gorilla is an invisible germ, or a slowly changing climate?

The coronavirus is an enemy that must be defeated before we can get back to some sense of normalcy.  But the gorilla is not the germ, just as the gorilla was never really an enemy of the villagers, only the scapegoat they used to justify how they behaved.  In fact, the gorilla was an answer to some of their problems all along, if only they had valued the life of a fellow species, and had thought about how preserving that life might help improve their own.

The gorilla that we all face is the process of altering our lifestyles for a while in order to prevent the loss of tens of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of other Earthlings.  The gorilla is the paradigm that makes us believe that we need more of everything, that money is more important than the lives of our parents, older siblings or elderly neighbors, that the economy must be preserved above all, even though we have a history full of cataclysmic economic events from which we have recovered. 

COVID-19 is just the latest disaster that we are encountering that should be reminding us that we have only one planet, that we need to work in concert with each other to maintain its health, and that battling and killing over pieces of land is like two fleas fighting to determine who owns the dog. 

Similarly, climate change itself is not the gorilla that we fear but the changes, the paradigm shifts that we will need to embrace that worries us.  Are we noticing that limited travel has produced a tangible effect on the air quality over the Western nations?  Does that mean we should stop traveling when this is all over?  Of course not, that is the problem with false choices.  We can have a clean environment and still travel, we just need to embrace the changes in our development and use of energy that will provide the best of both worlds.  We need to counter those who argue that changing over to a more environmentally friendly energy policy will be detrimental to our economy with the benefits that those changes will bring, just as many villagers learned to embrace the idea that saving the mountain gorilla would benefit them.       

I am reading a book which I will post about in the near future, which reminded me that humankind has only been around for a blink of an eye when compared to our planet, not to mention the universe.  Both will go on without us, should we fail to begin acting with a much bigger perspective.  If nothing else, saving mountain gorillas reminds us that if it wasn't for human intervention, mountain gorillas may be extinct today, and that if it wasn't for human activity, mountain gorillas would never have been in danger to begin with.  Likewise, we can be the savior or cause the demise of our own species as well.

The Price of Freedom

What a difference three weeks has made.  Back on March 9th, the United States had less than 750 documented cases of COVID-19, and only about 25 people had perished.  There were still people down-playing the severity of the pandemic, still people vacationing on beaches up and down the east coast (not sure about the west coast), still people attending sports and entertainment events, still people eating out at local restaurants and bars. 

Fast forward to today, and America leads the world in confirmed coronavirus cases, and will so, for the foreseeable future as we are adding more than double the number of cases of any other country each day. Most likely we will have over 160,000 cases by today's end, as compared to that 750 number just 21 days ago.  Fortunately, we are not seeing the horrendous death rate of Italy or Spain, but we will certainly surpass China in aggregate deaths in the next 2 days, most likely hitting the 3000 dead mark today compared to the 25 we had 21 days ago.  Just for reference sake, Italy and Spain will certainly achieve the dubious distinction of a death rate equivalent to 1 out of every 5000 people while China is holding at 1 out of every 500,000.  (American will be at the 1 out of every 100,000 mark, today or tomorrow).

Again, I am using the info from the link below, which updates regularly.  (There is a last time updated notation at the top of the page)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

First, let's recognize that there is a certain amount of skepticism that we should maintain when we examine results from countries that are generally closed to the free dissemination of news.  North Korea is not included on the list.  They, in fact, may have a far less occurrence of this pandemic because no one is flocking to that country.  And, whatever presence the disease may have, their authoritarian government would be reticent to reveal the details.  Russia is also fairing well in this outbreak, although, again, not a popular tourist destination, and not a land where independent reporting flourishes.  Even China's numbers should be considered with some doubt of their veracity.

There is certainly blame to go around as to why America is suffering more cases than all other nations (and remember, our testing still lags behind, so it is easy to imagine that we might already have had 250,000 cases so far).  We had our first case relatively early, in January, yet, as I indicated above, were still living our lives without constraint, almost 2 months later.  Perhaps, had China been more forthcoming about the virus, we might have acted more quickly, but given that we lost many weeks between first case and widespread "slow the spread" guidelines, that is wishful thinking, at best, a diversion of blame at worst.  The problem with the CDC's first attempt at testing also created a delay, as well as FDA rules that limit how and when independent, private sector development of testing kits and disease study can take place.  And, of course, the perception that the danger was more from speculative and sensational news coverage than from the actual virus itself.  "It will miraculously disappear by April" may also have contributed to the general nonchalance approach that marked the beginning of reporting of COVID-19.

But, blame aside, I think that we cannot ignore the simple fact that our singular sense of individualism and freedom in America, makes it much harder to attack a virus of this nature in a preemptive fashion, as compared to a society where personal liberties are more easily relinquished.  It is the price we may sometimes pay for our freedom.  Even today, as the trends for more cases and deaths continue to rise exponentially, there are calls to sacrifice a portion of the population rather than create an economic meltdown as such an economic collapse will surely bring its own set of misery and suffering. 

The simple fact is that if we, as a country, are not willing to allow our temperatures to be taken before we enter a public establishment, or even our place of employment, are not willing to be tested before
handling food we will be serving to others, caring for the sick, stocking shelves at a local grocer, or any of the myriad other contacts that occur in the service and retail industries, are not even willing to figure out a way for our elected officials to vote remotely so they don't spread the virus among those we need to make the most difficult decisions concerning this crisis, then we must own the fact that a certain amount of suffering and death are acceptable. 

There was recently a quote from the Governor of Mississippi who said that he not only did not want to issue a statewide closure of non-essential businesses, but that his power as governor meant that cities and towns in his state were not allowed to do so either.  This was just a few days ago.  Upon announcing this decision, he said that his state was not China and never would be.  I imagine he was referring to the fact that the entire area of WuHan was quarantined, no one in or out, to help contain the virus, and that an attempt was made to track down, isolate and trace the contacts of anyone who had visited that area.  In other words, an almost complete suspension of freedom.   Live Free or Die, as they say in New Hampshire. 

It will be easy to make a judgement on how we did when this is all over.  There will be those who will claim it was all overblown and others of who will wish we had acted sooner.  There will even be some who will try to create a perception of winners and losers, especially those in politics, even in the face of the loss of tens of thousands of lives and trillions of economic dollars.  Perhaps that too, is the price of freedom. The belief that any individual or group should, or could, or would somehow be a winner in the face of a national disaster. 

I would like to suggest that great freedom requires more social responsibility, not less.  The highest form of freedom is that which is sacrificed for the good of the community, whether that sacrifice occurs on the battlefield during wartime, or in the hospitals fighting a pandemic, or in the streets when we allow a nasal swab to reduce the spread of a disease.  Do we have the freedom to do nothing while a woman is raped in front of us?  To ignore a woman who is beating her child over the head?  To go into a hospital or nursing home even when we know we are contagious?  Is that the essence of true freedom, or true selfishness?  And, does pure individual freedom, where everyone can do as she pleases, create a totally free country, or anarchy?

Tough questions during a tough time, but perhaps now is the best time to address them, while we are battling this crisis.

Playing the numbers 2

Yesterday I requested that those who are discussing and debating the policies we should follow during the current crisis surrounding the COVD-19 virus, should detail the number of people that their plan is prepared to accept that will die.  In other words, to keep the economy from crashing, how soon should we expect to return to "normal" and how many deaths will that plan accept.  While I recognize that, in reality, there is no way to know how many lives will be saved or lost with any course of action, we will know how many have died when we reach May.  We will have a base line which will tell us that whatever protocol we chose to follow between now and then, it resulted in x amount of deaths and then can partially extrapolate that more drastic measures would have saved more, and less measures will have saved less. I know this will be an after the fact exercise, but it may at least provide guidance for future pandemics. 

I also hope that the lessons we learned already are that more testing needs to be done sooner, more people need to take such a situation more serious sooner, and that, perhaps, we should maintain a stockpile of medical supplies more in conjunction with the number of Americans, or, at least have a structure in place so that when 10 or 20 or even 100 times the amount of these materials is needed quickly, it is easier to turn on the process, and that it is less dependent on one person to make it so.  Perhaps we might have valves in multiple hands across America that can act when needed.

For this post, I would like to discuss the massive stimulus and rescue packages that are being rolled out.  I heard the president say that about 160 million Americans were working before this crisis.  My brief research before beginning this post confirms that number, but let's just say that 150 million people were working since that number is a bit easier to manipulate.

Some people estimate that millions of people will be out of work, either already or soon.  Let's use 20% of 150 million.  That means that 30 million people will be not working while 120 million people will still be working.  Now, I know that unemployment creates a cycle that feeds on itself, but for now, the vast majority of Americans are still working, or some, like myself, are not working but still being paid.  Why do we all need a check in the mail?  Giving everyone money, now, seems to be admitting that the virus will get worse, and that even more people will lose their pay.  But doesn't that fly in the face of targeting Easter to get back to work?

It seems that we are working at cross purposes, doling out a large sum of money to people who don't need it yet, while painting a hopeful picture that we are nearing the end.

Let's be clear.  I support the theory that the federal government should intervene in times of distress, whether that distress be from storm or disease or other natural disaster.  I expect that those who have been asked to stay home, who have been asked to shutter or vastly alter the working of their business, should certainly be compensated.  It would be nice if everyone could continue to be paid regardless of whether they are working but for many small businesses that is not reality, not if we are expecting 4-6 weeks of closure.  Get them money, as fast as possible, via whatever means we can create or expand upon.  I am even OK if we establish a fund for this purpose, knowing it is there as more people lose their jobs, but hoping it is not necessary to disburse.  It is that kind of structure that I think is missing, and that will hopefully be one of the things we address after this is over.  We shouldn't need Congress to debate the details again, but probably will as this progresses.  Why?

Also, for the majority of those of us who are either still working or getting paid to stay at home, what sacrifice are we being asked to make?  Can a percentage of us donate 5 or 10 percent of our salary to offset the cost of those who do not have that luxury?  I would imagine that there are many people who earn over 1 million a year who could get by on $900,000, and would do so if asked.  I also think that there are countless middle class Americans like myself who would accept a slightly smaller check to see America through this crisis.  Why isn't anyone asking us?

#letsallgivealittle

My assumption is that I need a check so that I can spend that money and keep the economy going.  But spend it where?  There are no entertainment or sporting events happening now.  I certainly shouldn't be hoarding food, and since there is limited food supply anyway with posted restrictions, I couldn't spend it there if I wanted.  Am I supposed to buy a car or boat?  Frankly, for those of use who really don't need the money now, it would be more prudent to save it just in case circumstances change, not immediately spend it.  Let's be honest, saving money is anathema to a system built on rampant consumerism yet this situation doesn't really lend itself, like perhaps the aftermath of 911 did, to handing out money to everyone at this time.  Let's use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

As for corporations getting helped, those who read me know I am not a fan.  If a large company hasn't created an emergency plan to address a 4 week shutdown, or doesn't have the resources to pay their employees during such a time, or can't manipulate its expenses so that while revenue may be dropping so are some costs associated with inventory and distribution which may be funneled to help shore up the salary outlays, or even, as I mentioned earlier, ask those at the top of the pay scale within their organizations to take a bit less so those at the bottom can be helped, not to mention, borrowing at zero interest on a temporary basis using the assets that they own as collateral, well, I guess I am unsympathetic. 

As for the cruise line industry.  No way.  Spend a bit of time researching these companies and you will find that they avoid paying taxes in America through a variety of ways, including registering their boats in other countries, regardless of where their headquarters might be.  They employ a small percentage of Americans and pay their employees poor wages.  In other words, they use American tourists to fund their businesses but return a very small percent of their income to the American taxpayer.  They don't even build their boats in America, let alone employ Americans on them.  And, frankly, while I actually would like to take a cruise one day, specifically to Alaska, if they did not exist tomorrow, the world would not be any worse off.  Let them go bankrupt and restructure but don't give them a penny

I am not sure why Americans who voted for a businessman to lead our country thought he would balance the budget or reduce the deficit.  Extremely rich business folk have ways and means to expand their wealth that regular people do not.  They use tax laws to cover their mistakes in one part of their business, to avoid paying taxes on their profits in another.  They declare bankruptcy without it effecting their ability to borrow large sums of money on their next scheme.  And, when push comes to shove, they abandon their so called love of individualism and capitalism, and come running to the American taxpayer for help, under the guise of too big to fail.  It seems pretty clear by the action of politicians on both sides, but especially those who lambasted Obama when the federal debt grew so much after the 2008 economic meltdown, that we love capitalism when we get to keep all the profits, but equally love socialism when we need help from the American taxpayer. 

Frankly, there is one sentiment that the president keeps trying to push, despite his denial of the magnitude of the problem in the beginning, and his slow response to the spread of the disease in February, and that is that we will recover from this crisis.  America, for all its problems and blindness to income inequality and wealth distribution, will see a rebound when this is all over.  Sure, the rich who are buying up stocks now at bargain basement prices will be even richer.  And we will pretend that a  health care system that is tied to employment is a good idea, even though even more people will be without health coverage after all this is over and even more people will face the prospect of getting health care of buying food.  (What, you think that just because some insurance companies say they will cover the cost of virus testing, that they will also take on the cost of any other malady that might strike a furloughed or laid off person during these times?)

Yes, we will survive this.  The question is, will we have learned anything?

Playing the numbers

I am not adamantly opposed to conversations that debate risk and reward, that weigh the consequences of action or non-action in the face of a crisis, or even in one's everyday life for that matter.  We all accept risk of one form or another many days of of our lives.

We might decide to smoke because it calms us, knowing full well that it will invariably reduce our life span.  We may turn to alcohol or marijuana or Valium to help us wind down from the stresses of our lives, knowing that for certain people with an addiction predisposition, just a little is not a possibility, and that without facing our reasons for why we need to drink or take drugs, we will never conquer those fears or worries, but could develop a dependence that is worse than the problem.

When I was younger, I hitchhiked across America, despite the warnings from my family and some friends.  Warnings which I countered by saying that driving is dangerous, getting in a car can be dangerous, how much has the percentage increased by getting in a car with a stranger who has decided to be a good Samaritan?  So, when I see the spring breakers on the beach and in the bars, I react just as those who were against my hitchhiking, consider them fools at best, selfish at worst, but all in all, young people having fun in a way that is not a wise choice.  I imagine that just as I might discourage my children from hitchhiking, those same spring breakers will be surprised in 20 years when they advise their own children to avoid unnecessary risks.

At this point in time, we have a virus of unknown infectious rate and mortality rate spreading across our country.  We are fortunate in that we have a few examples, and some data to draw from since some other countries were effected by the disease before us, but those examples range from China and South Korea where extensive testing and forced quarantine was used to identify and isolate those with the disease, to Italy and Spain where the freedom to go to restaurants and public entertainment events and beaches was not relinquished quite so easy as it was in the first two countries I mentioned.

Deaths per 1 million people in China and S Korea is around 2 while those for Italy and Spain are 100 and 60 respectively.  Our rate is at 2 as well but since we are just in the beginning of our battle, the question isn't will that number rise, but how can we avoid the death toll in Italy and Spain.  Yesterday we lost over 100 people for the first time, and we will most likely continue to break a record for deaths per day for 2 weeks, if you believe the medical experts who warn us that today's numbers reflect those who first encountered the disease 10-14 days ago.

So, not being a infectious disease expert or an economist, it is imperative that the president is weighing information from both as he makes his decisions, both today and in the weeks to come.

If we assume that President Trump is getting numbers from both camps, I would be curious as to what those numbers are, and how the President defines "the problem" when he says that the cure cannot be worse than the problem.  As I sit hear hacking away on my computer, there are 400,000 cases of the virus on the planet with about 17,500 fatalities so far.  When compared to the numbers from a normal flu season, there haven't even been as many deaths in the world as there will be in America this year.  However, the number of cases is expanding at 20% or more per day, so until we hit the top of the curve, it is not unlikely that there will be millions of cases worldwide by April, and 100,000 in America by next weekend.  Again, way less than the normal flu but the graph line is very close to vertical with no plateau in sight.

I believe that President Trump believes that the health experts are overstating the top end of the curve when some predict tens of millions of cases in America with tens of thousands of deaths, even though that is the typical extent of a normal flu season.  I also suspect that he does not hold with the theory that COVID-19 will be more fatal that the .1% mortality rate of the normal flu even though the current death rate in America is a bit over 1%, which is 10 times the flu and does not reflect the number of people in serious or critical condition which is twice more than the actual number of deaths.

This link below is a nice reference site.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

But again, there is a case to be made that another 10,000 COVID-19 deaths on top of the normal flu (which also may rise a bit since there could be resource shortages that effect the care and cure of those who become very sick from the normal flu), might not justify trillions of dollars of deficit spending and/or creating an economic recession.

For that reason, I think we need to ask the president along with all politicians and pundits who comment on the choices we have made and are about to make, what is the number of deaths they are willing to accept?  This is not meant to be a sarcastic question, or some type of philosophical trap, but is the foundation of the reasoning for how we handle this pandemic.

10,000 good, 50,000 less good but OK, 100,000 bad?

If closing everything for two more weeks results in only 25000 deaths where three weeks would have saved half of those lives, is that justification for more economic suffering?

Playing the numbers is a great way to gamble at Atlantic City or Las Vegas, especially when you are willing to lose everything you brought in order to have some fun.  However, if today's gambling losses also meant you might lose the same amount next week, without playing, you might think twice about what you are willing to risk.

Make no mistake, President Trump and all the Governors and the mayors and all their advisers and everyone who comments and opines on what we should do next, are making and effecting decisions that are not easy.  That is why we elected them, so that they can make those decisions for us, when we might spare no expense rather than to sacrifice our parent, older sibling, or immune deficient friend to save the economy for everyone else. Still, I am hopeful that despite the dire warnings from his economic advisers, the president will listen to those advising caution before reverting to "open for business" again, at least until the curve for the United States shows some type of flattening.

Finally, is it possible that this is a false choice to begin with?  Is it possible that the willingness for the rich and powerful to justify their decisions which lead to the suffering and death of the masses, is just another way for them to maintain the status quo which has rewarded them to date?  Why can't America, the greatest country now, or ever, be able to continue to reduce the spread of a novel virus through practices which reduce social contact, hence revenue, while still paying those who need to stay home while providing a source of money for those businesses most effected by the slowdown?  There are many people still working, many businesses only partially effected and some even doing well.  Why aren't they able to help bridge the gap by sacrificing a bit of pay and temporarily hiring some who are being displaced?  Are we even asking them?

In the end, the main problem with all this mental masturbation is that we can't go back in time if we think our actions are only going to cost 15,000 lives but end up costing 25,000.  We won't know if we made the right choices, ever, since how many lives we saved by washing our hands more and maintaining social distances will never be known,  We will only know, how many lives were lost despite our efforts.  Or, perhaps how many lives were sacrificed to avoid the cure being worse than the problem.

By the way, since I started this post about an hour ago, 750 more people died from the virus.

Circular Economy

Just finished reading a fascinating article in this month's National Geographic called The End of Trash. It describes the efforts being taken in some parts of the world to create a circular economy in which waste becomes just another material for some other process.  What is especially interesting about this concept is that it is as much a return to how waste was treated in the past as it is a result of innovations in these modern times which might enable it to come about.

The article takes great pains in detailing the source, processes and use, and final destination of our waste. Not surprisingly, while 2/3 of the material flowing through the global economy, that was 67.4 billion tons in 2015, gets emitted as pollution or scattered/disposed of as waste, less than 10% is reused.  This contrasts starkly with the knowledge of how societies and cultures more tuned to nature, wasted very little. As an example, in the use of a buffalo, meat for sustenance, hides for clothing, ligaments and bones for sewing thread and tools; nothing harvested that wasn't used in some way. 

Additionally, our trend towards a more consumer driven society, and the accepted belief that shiny and new is always better than worn and old, creates an endless supply of still useful goods that are discarded only because they work a tad less efficiently or are just not the latest and greatest.  The cell phone industry is a perfect example of this cycle of waste.  It eventually becomes necessary to replace a working but aged cell phone merely because the technology which cell phones access changes (or is purposefully altered) so that the older phones don't work.  Not only have advertisers been very successfully convincing the majority of people that keeping up with the Joneses, is necessary to remain socially accepted, but it has been latched onto by many of our institutions so that failure to do so is considered anti-capitalist, hence anti-American. 

A number of examples were cited in the article of successful attempts to create a more circular economy, hence less trash.  Unfortunately, most were overseas.  In Iceland, a power station that takes advantage of geothermal energy from the magma beneath the country's lava fields, not only produces heat and electricity for homes, but after treating the water that has created that energy, the water is used to create a popular tourist attraction.  

Also noted was the Italian company that extracts wool to be
re-spun, and an 11 company cooperative in Denmark where the steam from a nearby power plant is used to sterilize a company's equipment, which then sends its yeast slurry to a bio-energy plant where microbes process in into natural gas. 

Unfortunately, the circularity gap, the difference between what is wasted and what is reused, is widening, not closing, our use of natural resources is on pace to double again in another 30 years, and our carbon emissions are certainly not slowing.  The author, an admitted optimist, accepts the premise that his generation, my generation, needs to relinquish the reigns of power, the sooner the better, to make way for the ideas and vision of those born since 1990.  

Those people, who will do their living and dying in the second half of the 21st century, hopefully will make the necessary (and difficult) decisions to rethink our assault on nature, our use and abuse of the finite natural resources of our planet, and do their best to create a more circular economy that combines the thriftiness of our more agrarian ancestors with the innovation of the coming continued advancements in material processing, waste management and cooperative business practices.

I would imagine that our vision of the future, the one where machines make life easier, less dangerous, more productive, does not include mountains of used consumer goods or islands of plastic floating in our waterways.  Yet that is our direction, if we continue to fail to address how we are becoming the trashy neighbor of the solar system.  The article in Nat Geo makes it all too clear that it is not the lack of how to make things right, but the lack of will to do it, just as it is with so many of our shared problems.

Perhaps a silver lining might emerge from this virus scare but only if we resist the belief that we can merely return to doing what we did before.  We need a sea change in our approach, or we will fail to heed the lessons of this pandemic, and fail to do the right thing by our progeny and our Mother Earth.

Gene Stratton-Porter

Born Geneva Grace Stratton in 1863, this woman eventually became one of the most read authors in the early 20th century. Her books about nature, and especially those concerning the Limberlost area of northern Indiana, introduced multiple generations to the beauty of nature, the importance of biodiversity in the natural world, and the idea that a woman could be more than just a wife.  In the area of environmental awareness, she was sighted by many who came after her as an influence in their lives, including Rachel Carson.

I just read about Stratton-Porter in the March edition of The Smithsonian magazine.  What spurred me to post about her, besides the above mentioned plaudits which just scrape the surface of her life, was the following quote:

It was Thoreau who in writing of the destruction of the forests exclaimed, "Thank heaven they cannot cut down the clouds".  Aye, but they can!...If men in their greed cut forests that preserve and distill moisture, clear fields, take the shelter of trees from creeks and rivers until they evaporate, and drain the water from swamps so that they can be cleared and cultivated, they prevent vapor form rising.  And if it does not rise, it cannot fall.  Man can change and is changing the forces of nature.  Man can cut down the clouds.

She was talking about climate change before the term was coined, and in particular the actions of humanity which may change the climate. We know that the earth's temperature is slowly rising and that incidents of extreme weather have increased.  Wildfire season out West starts earlier and lasts longer.  Winters have certainly been more mild in the recent past. 

Despite these observations, and her desire to awaken her readers to become more in tune with nature, Stratton-Porter did not write her books to warn of a coming environmental crisis but to inspire her readers to higher ideals, ideals which included a respect and appreciation for nature, among others.

We are currently in the throes of a pandemic, caused by the Covid-19 strain of the family of corona viruses, the same family which brought us SARS and MERS.  Are these instances of viral infections the result of our over populating the earth, in that more people equates to more of a chance for a virus of this type to jump from animal to human populations?  Or the result of the continuing thaw of the permafrost in the Arctic which may release bacteria which has heretofore remained frozen in the ground?  Or just a reflection of a lack of respect which we give to nature through our belief that we can do whatever we want without regards to the consequences?

Or perhaps, it is all just another episode in the great game of life, in this case, the game which pits us against ourselves.  Our ambition to improve our lives versus the risks we will take to achieve those improvements.  Stratton-Porter wrote her books about nature and its beauty while her husband increased his fortune selling oil from the 60 oil wells on the family farm.  Does one cancel out the other, or just reflect the difficulty in trying to achieve two goals which produce opposite results?

They say that the wise man learns more from his mistakes than his successes.  It is hard to label humanity as wise at this point for while our successes are numerous and impressive, we seem far less willing to even acknowledge our failures, let alone learn from them, seem far too willing to take the credit when things go well while being quick to point the finger of blame when things fall apart. 

When the current crisis passes, will there be a widely circulated report detailing how we can best handle the next viral outbreak?  Will we wash our hands more, less or the same once things settle down?  Will we remain conscious of our individual responsibility to avoid contact with the immune compromised if we are sick?  Will we push for paid sick leave for all Americans, especially those in the retail, food, and care giving industries who are now bearing the brunt of the national shutdown? Will we demand that our government and private sector employers replace their tired platitudes which pretend that they treat their employees like family, with actual laws and policies that reflect the genuine belief that without the efforts of the American worker, there would be no profits, stock options or GDP growth?  Will we strive for a more equitable distribution of wealth so that everyday families are not so often one missed paycheck away from financial ruin?

       

Life without Sports

For more than a couple of years, I have been becoming disenchanted with sports, specifically the high salaries being paid for people to play a game.  I am not the only person who perceives the vast investment in all forms of the entertainment industry as a way for the extremely wealthy to keep the everyday person distracted from what is really important.  I have more than once bemoaned the fact that most people can more readily name the judges on The Voice or American Idol than those on the Supreme Court.  

The simple fact that a reality TV icon was able to parlay his extremely rude but entertaining treatment of people on his show into a presidential campaign, is proof enough.  To me, salaries over 10 million dollars a year for an individual in sports or the entertainment industry or business, when millions of Americans work 40+ hours a week and still live near or below the poverty line, most likely without health care benefits or paid sick leave, and when far too many schools, inner city and rural, struggle to provide the basic tools necessary to learn, speaks volumes about our priorities, or lack thereof.  Yes, I understand that there will always be haves and have nots, but when we justify such a wide gap between them, we dismiss the toll that living in a forced subsistence manner has on families.

I wrote a story about 10 years ago which addressed the issue of athletes and high salaries, a problem which has become far worse since that story was written.  If interested, please click the link below

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/08/change.html

But I digress.

Despite everything I have said above, I still spend too much time on sports, watching sports, checking on the scores, talking about them.  While I do not consider myself a true sportsaholic, I don't have a FanDuel account, and have never called a Sports radio show, I admit to spending too much time engaged in them as an audience, as opposed to a participant.  In short, I was a hypocrite when it came to saying that athletes salaries were too high, when my actions in supporting them play a part in making those salaries high in the first place.  And so, when the sporting world came to a halt last week due to the Covid-19 outbreak, I wondered how I would fare. 

Well, it has been a week and I am proud to say that I have not missed sports all that much.  Yes, I admit to grabbing the remote when I returned from work a few days ago and began to check for the scores before I remembered that there were none, but for the most part, it has been a smooth transition.  In fact, since I tended to watch sports on TV, I am not watching quite as much TV in general, although I do check in for updates concerning the stock market and virus progression.

Perhaps the nicer weather makes it easier to exist without sports, plus we are occupied with the prospect of moving in the next few months.  But I have always enjoyed reading and am finding more time for that hobby, and I am even engaging in conversation with my daughter and wife a bit more frequently.

The big test, of course, will be how I react when sports returns.  Will I be like the dieter who gains back most of the weight after losing 20 pounds, or will I resist the temptation to automatically tune to whatever sporting event is on, or to check the scores of the local teams.  If there is an NHL and NBA playoff season, it will not be easy to not watch if either of the two local teams are playing, or to not check the scores while they play.  I expect that it is far easier to not miss sports when there are none to miss as it is to not watch sports or check the scores when they are in full action. 

I doubt that I will ever not enjoy sports.  There are a lot of positive things about playing a team game and learning to work in conjunction towards a common goal, as well as pushing one self to fully realize one's potential if athletics are an area where one excels.  And, of course, amateur sports, where it still exists, is often a great place to spend one's sports dollar as it is at that level that all future sports professionals learn the best (and unfortunately, worse) of what sports is about.

As in all things, balance is the key.  I hope I am able to find that balance once sports returns, as I am also hopeful that we can somehow alter our societal perspective on sports so that we can learn the valuable lessons that teamwork and self discipline can provide without directing such high levels of money, admiration and importance to a person who happens to run a bit faster, jump a bit higher, or have better hand-eye coordination than average.





 

Future Spring

So, I finished Silent Spring a month or so ago.  The remaining chapters were even more prescient accounts of Rachel Carson's fears of where we were headed should we continue to work against nature rather than with her. 

To be honest, it is not a book one should read in this particular time.  While the few decades after the publication of Silent Spring brought an amazing litany of successful environmental progress, including the creation of the EPA (by Richard Nixon in 1970), we seem to have passed a tipping point whereby the majority of people are far too willing to sacrifice clean air and water, too complacent about the mass extinction of species that is occurring, and far too easily convinced that we have reaped the benefits of all those regulations and programs and revelations about how horribly we were polluting our environment, and that now, the battle over, we can stop caring.

I guess it is understandable that such a time would follow those accomplishments.  History is filled with examples of mankind coming to realize a drastic situation, addressing it, making it right, and then going back to the behavior or actions that caused the problem in the first place.  It is certainly easy to forget how problems like acid rain, lakes without marine life, and waterways on fire, were tackled through public and private cooperation, especially when we can see how other nations have not progressed as far as we have. 

I have no doubt that climate change is real, and that we are a contributing factor.  The very advancements that make life so much easier than it was in the past, are now threatening how future generations will live.  While we can wait for the disaster to be upon us, and then do what we do best, wouldn't it be better to start now, with reachable, incremental goals that create the least amount of stress?

I am not quite sure how many of those who support the current Administration. also support the denial of climate change.  I understand why they embrace that denial.  Change can be difficult, challenging, hard work even.  It is much easier to pretend that we can return to a time when we allowed industry to spew its refuse into our air and water, and sent our fathers and brothers into mines to dig into the earth for coal, but that is a dead past, not a future. 

What is ironic is that we all have benefited from the environmental success stories of the past 50 years, those who scoff at the idea of climate change, and those that work to avoid its most deadly ramifications.  When industry fought the addition of scrubbers to reduce the pollution being sent from those thousands of smoke stacks, the resulting reduction of air pollutants was enjoyed by all children, even those of the men who decried the requirement.

It will not be easy to transform our economy from fossil fuel dependence to a greener one.  But at some point, we will have to grapple with the cost of inaction now compared to emergency action later.  Like the frog in the pot of water that doesn't notice the slow incremental increase in the temperature until it has been cooked alive, so are we experiencing more extreme weather, milder winters, arctic ice melt, rising earth temperatures. 

But unlike the frog, I and many of those who are reading this post, will not be cooked alive.  And that is worrisome, because the more people who remain the frog, unaware of the changes, or who take the position that they will be gone before the shit really hits the fan, the worse it will be for the future Spring for my children, their children and the generations that follow.