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. 

Not so Silent, Spring

I gave Nora a number of books for Christmas this year, most with an environmental theme, and, to be honest, most that I am hoping to read myself.

As appropriate, I have started with Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson.  I am about half way through.  With chapter titles such as Needless Havoc, And No Birds Sing, and Rivers of Death, Carson lays out a compelling description of man's attack on the natural world.  Her examples pointedly illustrate that our misguided beliefs that we can conquer or subdue nature, or that by poisoning one particular pest, we don't kill other creatures when we upset the balance of nature, are leading us down a path fraught with the possibility that we will be the authors of our own demise.

Silent Spring was published in 1962, at a time when the widespread use of pesticides, insecticides and herbicides to combat the animals, insects and plants that we had determined to be economically detrimental, dangerous to our health, or just plain annoying, was just beginning to be questioned by biologists, naturalists and other observers of the natural world.  While Carson's most famous target, DDT, was banned in the United States in the 1970's, she also directed her concerns to the vast arsenal of chemicals which were used at this time, chemicals that were proven effective poisons, but had not been fully tested as to how they would effect all other life, including mankind.

For her efforts to warn us of our folly, Carson was attacked, not surprisingly, by the chemical industry, and some governmental organizations, labelled everything from tree hugger to anti-capitalist.  Yet she says many times in the nine chapters I have read so far, that she understood the necessity of combating diseases being spread by insects, or crops being destroyed by parasites.  It wasn't the reasons for the creation of all those deadly chemicals and the massive sprayings that followed their creation that alarmed her, but that she knew the chemicals were not vetted for their effects on the birds and fish and other animals that would be caught in the crossfire, and that she knew that there were other ways, more in balance with nature, that could be applied to address those issues, and that she suspected that above all, money and profit were behind much of the purposeful withholding of funds to study the effects of those poisons, and denial that the chemicals were dangerous.  Chemicals which needed to be applied every year, as opposed to natural remedies that might work, once and done for as any good businessman knows, there is no profit when the cure doesn't need repetition.

Rachel Carson died just a few years after the publication of Silent Spring.  I don't know if she was, or would have been an "I told you" type of person, but in light of the declining bee populations, the ongoing species extinction that is occurring today, and the rise of the "superbugs" which have developed resistance to antibiotics, not to mention the possible links between the increase in many nerve, brain and fertility ailments among humans, and the barrage of chemicals that we have been subjected to, in our food, air and water, I imagine that Carson would have multiple opportunities to remind us of her warnings.

I don't doubt, however, that she would be very vocal in her outrage at our continued attempts to dominate the natural world.  I imagine that she would have been present at many a protests aimed at waking up our current administration to its denial of climate change, belittling of those, like Carson, who are sounding the alarm, and worse, actually contributing through policy and advocacy of those partly responsible for its exacerbation.

I imagine that she would be lobbying for disclosure of the chemical cocktail being blasted into the earth to release natural gas.  I am sure she would ask why the public does not have a right to those recipes, since those chemicals are now a permanent part of our groundwater, and, like the pesticides she studied, will eventually seep into our wells, our rivers, our oceans.

I imagine that she would be at the forefront of those calling for a halt to the burning of the Amazon rain forest, as just another example of short sighted actions with long term ramifications.

And, it is easy to imagine that Rachel Carson would be aghast at the amount of plastics that we are carelessly tossing into our lakes, rivers, streams and oceans.  It has already been documented that micro-plastics are ubiquitous, found in everything from the arctic tundra to human breast milk.

It is hard to know if we will wake up in time to avoid environmental disaster, or that, perhaps, our ingenuity will supplant our carelessness, and we will progress, two steps forward, one step back.  It is hard to be hopeful, when, frankly, far too many people are resistant to admitting we need to alter our approach to nature, or just don't care.  Fortunately, there are voices like Carson's who live in perpetuity through her books, and people and organizations today that continue to carry the banner of environmental awareness, and who remain not so Silent.         

In Observing...

Not sure exactly when I wrote this poem.  Probably in my early 20's, at a time where I was far too negative, hopeless, certainly dissatisfied.  A time of questioning the true meaning of life, the odds of being happy, and my own place in the scheme of it all.

I thought it important to share this poem because I expect to be focused on the environment in my next posts.  And, not from a hopeful perspective.

Look for the hidden message.


In observing the beauty of a
Sunset, I began to question the
Trueness of the feelings of the current species on
His only home.  Unlike the first men of
Eons ago, modern homo-sapiens' only concern is
Racing from place to place in search of
Exotic pleasure fulfillment.  Our predecessors were
Hourly amazed with things no more complex than
Oranges defying gravity or the subtle change in
Position of that tide-controlling ball which many
Eager wanderers tried so desperately to reach only to
Fall back in frustration.  When huge, dark clouds crossed
Over his sky, he sat in awe at nature's way of
Ridding her domain of impurities.  Now, a storm is a
Mere inconvenience for us, the technologically advanced strain.
Although many look upon the days of the dinosaur and
Neanderthal with pity, I do so with envy.

The Right to Choose

I caught the end of a Star Trek Next Generation episode today.  It was the one where the Federation, through the lead of one of its most brilliant robotic engineers, has decided to "decommission" Data.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with the show, Data is a highly advanced robot, played by actor Brent Spiner who interacts with the other crew members (and the audience) as if a real person, although, like Spock from the original Star Trek show, Data is always working on his emotions.   At the conclusion of the episode, Captain Picard presents a case for bestowing the right to choose on Data, by appealing both to Data's obvious intelligence, awareness of his situation, and awareness of self (criteria often put forth as qualifiers for sentience), but also, by acknowledging that it is inevitable that other Data-like being will one day be created, a race of them, one might say, and that by ruling that Data is property, no more, with no choice to decide his fate, the Federation would be establishing a legal justification for the enslavement of future Data-like beings, even those who are created with even more human like capabilities. 

Laws which protect property over people.

The fact of the matter is that humanity has been struggling with the definition of property for all of its existence.  Legally speaking, men were often protected from the ramifications of spouse and child abuse due to the long held beliefs that they were the property of the man of the house.  Not to mention the hundreds of years of slave trade where people of color were sold in the marketplace right alongside cattle and sheep. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 

Self-evident perhaps to white men about white men and their possessions, who themselves often treated their children, spouse, and certainly men of color as property, perhaps even despairing at such beliefs but perceiving them necessary for economic reasons.  The decades after these words were written are marked by both amazing accomplishments, and horrific instances of denying those very unalienable rights to the Native Americans who populated our land before it was the United States, and those American born citizens who happened to be the wrong color.

Which bring me to the Turkish invasion of Syria.

Sadly, the focus of Americans seems to be that either President Trump tacitly gave Turkish President Erdogan the green light to invade or that we should not be involved in a country protecting its borders.  There is very little talk of the choices available for the people who live in this area of the world, people whose only crime was to be born there. 

Now, let's be clear on this.  The situation with the Kurds, is extremely complicated.  They exist primarily in an area which is labelled Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey, on a map; upwards of 30 million people without a country of their own, perhaps the largest such distinction in the world.  Since a large share of Kurds live in Turkey where they press for there own self-governed territory or more representation in government, sometime violently, the PKK is considered a terrorist organization by Turkey, and other countries around the world, including America.  Yet, it was Kurdish forces which did the yeoman's work on the ground to help defeat the ISIS caliphate, and who currently guard the prisons where many ISIS fighters are held. 

In essence, the United States used the Kurds to help defeat ISIS, while condemning their acts of terrorism within Turkey to gain political independence.  If you see parallels to the events of the 1770's in colonial America, you shouldn't be surprised.  Syria, which is run by a Russian ally in Bashar Assad, a man condemned multiple times by the West for his awful treatment of the Kurds in his country, (just as ex-ruler of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was vilified for gassing Kurds in nothern Iraq), is being turned to by the Kurds to help them maintain their land in northern Syria.  Whether Assad gives a shit about the Kurds or just wants to act as a thorn in Turkey's invasion of its land, is certainly debatable.  All the while, an Erdogan led Turkey, which is a NATO country, is becoming far too friendly with Putin and Russia.  I guess dictators and tyrants have their own club too.

And so the wheel keeps spinning with the Kurds looking to, literally, anyone to help them fight an assault that is creating over a hundred thousand refugees (where will they go, Turkey, Iran, Iraq?), destroying their villages and killing their soldiers. 

All because they do not have the right to choose and are fighting, among other things, laws which protect property (country sovereignty) over people.  President Trump is fine with allowing Turkey to defend its borders (he probably wishes he could create a buffer zone between America and Mexico) as that is one of his major political stances.  Russia is giddy with the idea that they can be the peacemaker, cementing their importance in the Middle East drama.  Syria is glad the line in the sand is now being drawn against Turkey.  And Iraq and Iran want anything except an independent country for the Kurds (especially if they get to control the oil reserves in the northern areas of these countries) so don't mind the Turks doing the dirty work of cleansing the area of Kurds, cleansing being the proper term.

The right to choose.  It is certainly a Utopian dream to believe that those uplifting words which helped create America, would actually be brought to fruition throughout Earth.  It would require a paradigm shift of the highest magnitude in so many phases of the tenets of civilized thought, none less important that the legal structure which protects property over people. 

The Kurds have fought, and will continue to fight, to protect their families and their culture from being forcibly removed from their homeland, a land where they have lived for centuries regardless of the name assigned to it on a map.  Yes, they are a tribe caught between many countries, sometimes to the detriment of their cause, but a family nonetheless.

Is it possible for a family to encompass such a large population while living in multiple jurisdictions?  Is it possible for a family to encompass multiple countries while sharing religion, culture or strong moral values?  Is it possible for a family to include all races and creeds, despite the variety of ways in which they speak, worship and love?  Is it possible for a family to be the family of Earth, as seen from the perspective of a being not of this planet?

Can we extend the right to choose to all the members of the family of man?  Do we want to, really?  Humanity has a long was to go before the words of the Declaration are applied to all the humans who inhabit our planet. 

Climate Musings

I just finished reading the Fall Edition of Lapham's Quarterly, called Climate.  As usual, an amazing compilation of essays, notes and observations concerning the planet and its climate.  And, also as can be expected, a compilation that reaches thousands of years into our past, and even a few which describe possible future scenarios.

I bookmarked a number of the articles towards purchasing some books for Christmas, some of which are. 

The Unexpected Universe by Loren Eisely

Man and Nature by George Perkins Marsh

When Rain Clouds Gather by Bessie Head

the Muqaddimah by Qalat ibn Salama

The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells

Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari

Down to Earth byBruno Latour

How the Little Ice Age Transformed the West and Shaped the Present by Philipp Blom

The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire byKyle Harper

Many, if not all of these books exhibit a common theme; as mankind has experienced the boom in technology, industrial capacity, robotics, and modern medicine, as we have learned that we can control our environment, manipulate bacteria, extract more and more valuable commodities from the planet, we also take one more step towards a disconnection from nature and its cycles, so that while we have certainly advanced in a remarkable fashion from our humble beginnings, we have also misinterpreted that dominion over the flora and fauna of Earth equates to controlling and conquering nature, as opposed to the more responsible definition which includes taking care of and being responsible for the continued flourishing of the beauty and sustenance that nature provides.

In Climate, we have accounts of people working with the land, using its resources responsibly, so that they remain for future generations, side by side with depictions of men denuding forests for all its lumber, then moving on the next wooded area with no concern for the devastation left behind.  In both cases, these stories teach us a lesson about valuing what we have, and working with nature to improve our lives, as opposed to improving our lives despite the consequences to the natural world, as if the two are not intertwined.

Nora and I went to the movies last weekend and saw Ad Astra.  At one point in the movie, when describing the lunacy of men fighting over the resources of the moon and other planets in our solar system, the main character describes humanity as "world eaters".  The phrase is stated with the backdrop of malls and consumerism on the moon, all to distract us from the reality that our petty wars over resources, rather than been solved before we left our big, blue marble, came with us to the other rocks orbiting around our sun.  Is the epitaph "world eater" destined to be our legacy should others visit earth after humans are gone?

It is difficult to predict what the world may be like in 20, 30, 50 years from now.  I imagine that if we were to speak in depth with people born in the early 20th century, those who have seen the massive changes in transportation (horse drawn carriages to rockets), communication (telegraph lines and limited distance phone lines to instant world-wide access in your hand), medicine (millions dying and maimed from the ravages of polio and flu to the mapping of the human genome and targeted treatments based on individual genetics), and global interconnections (from alliances based on blood lines to ones based on money and natural resources), we would come away with the feeling that most of these scenarios could not have been foreseen, and that the aged are as much lost in the times of today as they are in the hurt that results from the death of their generation.

But what is easy to predict is that if we don't come to grips with the effects of the Anthropocene Age, especially the damage we are causing to the natural cycles of our environment, our future will be as unpredictable as the present is for those who lived 100 years ago. 

Will we be like the frog who doesn't notice the warming water until it has been boiled to death, or will we be able to pry our future from the deleterious effects that result from unrestrained capitalism and its crony, uncontrolled resource extraction? 

Can we take a step back from the idea that we are judged, we will be judged by future generations with a yardstick labelled profit and loss, and replace it with the understanding that history might reflect a new morality where the degree in which the Earth's population suffers, or does not suffer, from poverty, treatable disease, or a lack of opportunity for education and economic sustainability, was addressed with environmentally friendly solutions that not only promoted humanity's survival but did so in conjunction with nature not in opposition to it?

The other interesting take away I realized from Climate, is the pretty large trove of history that connects natural disasters with cultural and even social change in humanity.  And on a fairly large scale as well.  It is just another example of how understanding history, or at least understanding the importance of valuing historical lessons, can help bridge humanity's efforts to a more peaceful future.  Perhaps some of those connections as described in Climate are the result of connecting dots after the fact towards a result one wishes to find, but it can certainly bring one to pause when we consider how horribly we are treating Mother Earth, and how she may react, in light of past social and cultural upheavals that seemed to coincide or were inspired by a large scale natural phenomena, especially those associated with humongous volcanic eruptions and the change in world wide climate that a few of them caused. 

It is no surprise that we are experiencing an increase in human migration due to climate fluctuations, if one studies the reasons for past human migrations, migrations which compelled early hominids to seek more hospitable environs.  In essence, humanity has been searching for Eden ever since we became conscious of our discomfort, sometime driven by the search for better food sources, sometimes water, sometimes shelter, but often as the result of a climate change that made "home" less hospitable.

Just as no man should be above the law, humanity is not above nature.  If we continue to treat it as just another commodity, I fear we will be vastly unprepared for the ramifications of our folly, and not able to break the paradigm that put us in this mess, which will result in mankind engaging in the same actions which brought us a climate crisis, unable to shift quickly enough once the true danger is realized.  Certainly the lessons of history, and many of the entries in Climate, would lead me to conclude so.  Let's hope history is not repeated and I am incorrect.