Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Kakistocracy at its best

Kakistocracy, if you're not familiar with the word, means government by the worst. So to say 'kakistocracy at its best' could be seen as an oxymoron except that kakistocracy's best must necessary mean that they are doing the worst job or worst things possible.  Well, before we totally scramble our brains trying to figure out what it means for a kakistocracy to do its best, let's move on.
          At a Kentucky political rally on Oct 13th., with Trump watching, the Kentucky Senator, Mitch McConnell again attacked Social Security and Medicare.  The LA Times asked "is Mitch McConnell deliberately trying to throw the election to the Democrats?" (i)  Now first of all we must do some translating.  Washington linguistics tends to be complicated and incomprehensible.  If you study the language you will soon realize that the requirement for a Washington political word or phrase is that it must be sufficiently flexible and unclear so that, if you realize that what you said might be political suicide you can easily forget it or say that it was misinterpreted.  Republicans love, from time to time, to talk about managing entitlements.  If you know any Republican politicians, you know that she/he is talking about Social Security and Medicare. But they can always deny it.
          But we can't spend a lot of time on trying to understand Washington-speak. We have before us a post that has shown up on Facebook and Twitter. Most of the fact-check organizations would give this one a "mostly true".   We really need to analyze what it says to see if it is kakistocracy at its best.
          "The Republicans blew a $2 Trillion hole into the deficit with their tax cuts for the rich."   It isn't a very well written sentence is it.  They obviously mean to say that the Republicans tax cuts for the rich are adding two trillion dollars to the national deficit.  The Central Budget Office of the US Government reports that the tax and spending bills of 2018 will raise the deficit to $804 billion dollars this year and just under a trillion dollars for the next budget year. From what I can ascertain through a variety of sources (The Hill, Forbes, et al.) it will push the deficit to around two trillion dollars in about ten years.  But the point is made, if not a bit exaggerated, that the Republican Congress did give a whopping big tax break to the rich and the corporations they own that is driving up the deficit.  It is rather hard to deny that giving up almost a trillion dollars in tax income will drive up the deficit.  To try to blame it on something or someone else is absurd, but Washington politicians have always been experts at stating the absurd and swearing it's the truth.
          "Now they are sounding the alarm bells about how big the deficit is."  Can't really analyze this. It is pretty obvious, so let's move on.  McConnell has spoken out on the subject three times in the past two weeks.  What I'd really like to ask them, when they start acting all surprised and alarmed, is "what the hell did you think would happen?"
          "Their solution? Gutting Medicare and Social Security so the rich can keep their tax cut."    In a Bloomberg News Interview McConnell was asked about the budget deficit explosion.  He replied "It's very disturbing. And it's driven by the three biggest entitlement programs that are very popular: Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid." (ii)  According to the Huffpost coverage of the interview he went on to blame all politicians for "lacking the backbone to make cuts to programs due to their popularity." There seems to be no doubt that the Majority Leader of the US Senate is truly gunning for Social Security and Medicare, and the Speaker of the US House of Representative is standing right beside him.
          It does seem that this post is basically true and therefore kakistrocracy at its best.  We are quick to realize that today our kakistocracy is so very much like the government in Orwell's novel 1984.   With doublethink and rewriting history they follow the 1984 government practice of keeping the masses ignorant.  We are being told that war is peace, slavery is freedom and ignorance is strength.  Snubbing morality they claim to be definers of morality. Killing democracy while they claim to defend it.  And what little we have, they will take.
          Sadly I give you kakistocracy at its best . . . I mean its worst . . . well, just good ole American kakistocracy.
.
.
FOOTNOTES: -
(ii) (https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us)
#MitchMcConnell #kakistocracy #politics #government #SocialSecurity #Medicare #Republicans #deficit

Friday, October 19, 2018

Growth for the sake of growth is the idealogy of the cancer cell

Cancer cell under microscope posted by Dahye Kwak on Pinterest.  

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell"  is one of Edward Abbey's famous statements. It not only makes me think, it scares the hell out of me, and, I would propose, it should scare you too.  Our super-capitalistic economic system can only survive on growth. Constant growth.  Uninhibited growth.  Cancerous growth.  Growth for the sake of growth. 

We have been indoctrinated for decades, by the owners of the big corporations that survive because we constant over-consume, that we must always have the newest, we must always buy and not repair, and that if we do not continue to consume stuff at an ever increasing rate the world economy will collapse and the world, as we know it, will end.  Actually, the only true part of that statement, of that super-C dogma, is that, if we would not consume as they want the world, as we know it, would come to an end.  But have you thought about the possibility that ending the world as we know it might not only be the best thing for us, but be quite pleasant. 

Granted, it would not be an easy transition, but it sure would be easier and better than dying of the cancer-mentality of super-C.   Over consumption, which means the destruction of nature and natural resources, will ultimately kill us if we would happen to survive the natural disaster which is being brought about by the production of the consumables.  Cancer is like a parasite.  Actually one scientist,  Dr. Peter Duesberg, a molecular and cell biologist at University of California at Berkeley, does call cancer a parasite.  He wrote "Just as parasites do, cancer depends on its host for sustenance, which is why treatments that choke off tumors can be so effective. Thanks to this parasite-host relationship, cancer can grow however it wants, wherever it wants."  (i)   A parasite lives off its host until it kills the host. Then both the host and the parasite die. Our over consumption - growth for the sake of growth - will continue to consume the world around us until we kill it.  When we kill it, we will die. 

Pamela and I, along we countless thousands (maybe millions) of others, live a purposeful, minimalist life-style.  We live simply.  Our twenty-foot camper trailer home runs on solar energy.  We do use propane for cooking and heating, but we consume only seven pounds of propane every two to four weeks.  Our conservationist habits conserve on water.  We can live comfortably for two weeks on less than 40 gallons of water.  We do use a gasoline truck to pull our trailer, but I'm watching the development of the long-haul electric truck which can already be purchased at around $150,000. That's about the same price as its diesel counterpart.  If I could afford $150,000, we'd have an electric truck.  Of course, we'd have to worry about how the electricity for the truck was generated. I don't know if we could provide the charge with our current solar system. We don't eat out and we use no processed foods. Our wardrobe is simple and I can't remember the last time we were in a mall. Our days are spent in nature.  Our entertainment is watching the birds and wildlife or taking a walk. Most modern super-C people would find our life-style intolerable, but it is actually quite pleasant and stress-free.  In truth, it is also much healthier than others.  When I must be in a town I see people who look and act much older than me.  I am amazed when I find they are several years my junior. At Glacier I average walking five miles and biking up to twenty miles each day and a five to ten mile hike for fun is not uncommon.  I climb mountains from time to time, saunter through the desert and find being out in the wilderness the greatest place in the world.  I'm seventy-two years old. 

Growth, in and of itself, is not bad.  We like to see our children grow up strong and healthy.  We like to see someone grow emotionally, spiritually or in the skills of their trade or vocation. We want to grow spiritually and in knowledge. We enjoy growing relationships and see our skills grow. Growth can be good. But growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell and the hallmark of our super-C life-style.  It is killing us.  If we don't change our behavior, we are dead. 



FOOTNOTES:











Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal



As a psychotherapist I obviously ran into a lot of anger.  At some point we would always explore this saying because it is so true.  Does the person who has made you angry care?  Probably not. Sometimes that makes you more angry.  If you're hurting, you think, so should they.  The problem is that isn't the way things work with humans.  

For the past two years I, like a majority of American and others around the world, have been dealing with anger.  I don't know about the others, but I have been trying very hard not to hold on to my anger. That  isn't easy, is it?  There are those who believe that one must be angry or angry enough to take action.  I don't agree with that.  If we react strictly out of anger, there are two immediate big problems. Firstly, such reactive anger is really no different than that of those whose anger Flagellum Americae likes to inflame in order to control them and bend them to his will.  Secondly, this very anger tends to cause us to be irrational and potentially misguided. Again, look at those manipulated by Verecundiam Americae.  There is no doubt that controlling one's anger is far from easy, especially when there are those who really like to "push your buttons".   

There is a lot energy in anger.  The heart rate, arterial tension and testosterone go up and the left hemisphere of the brain becomes more stimulated. (i)  Unlike laughing, which actually burns calories, anger has no such benefits.  However, anger has been found to be a great motivator. Since there is no way to avoid anger, we need to put the energy and motivation to good use.  Some people volunteer for political candidates while others volunteer in the areas they feel are threatened most by Miserabilis Homunculum and Company.  Since Pamela and I are already deeply involved in the care and welfare of wilderness and national parks, I write blogs like this one.  As the bio I put on social media says  "To protect nature is to protect ourselves. To defend the Earth is to assure our very existence.  My mission is to raise awareness, educate and call people to action regarding #environment, #nature, #civilrights and other current issues."  
 
What is your forte?  When you are motivated by anger, what could you do that addresses the cause of your anger without becoming another victim of manipulated rage?  I know people who have their Congressional representative's telephone number on speed-dial.  There is an organization called Waging Nonviolence.Org.  Look them up on FaceBook.  

Culus Primus does not want you to learn to control your anger.  He is a master of creating and using anger to achieve his ends.  If you want to make a meaningful and powerful response, find a non-violent, well thought through way to harness the energy and motivation of your anger.  There is no way people will every stop getting angry. We wouldn't want to.  It is an essential part of our being, but we don't want to hold onto it so that it becomes our downfall or the tool for someone else to destroy us.   


FOOTNOTES:
(i)  www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100531082603.htm

#anger #motivation #emotions  #wagingnonviolence  #oldconservationist 

Monday, October 15, 2018

Homo sapiens. Evolutionary success or failure?

Homo Sapiens 
Homo sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years. (i) The homo erectus, now extinct, was around about 1.9 million years ago, (ii) but they are not modern humans.  This seems like a really long time until we compare it to some well-known fellow creatures on earth. The whale has been around 50 million years. That's 250 times longer than us.  The elephant had been on earth 55 million years or 275 times longer than us. (iii) That's pretty awesome but that doesn't compared to the crocodile at 105 million years (525 times longer).  Wow!  You think that's amazing, how about the shark at 409 million years or 2,045 times longer than homo sapiens?!  We're not done. The horseshoe crab has been on earth for 480 million years. That's 2,400 times longer than us. (v)  If the time-line of earths existence was marked out on a football field, the appearance of homo sapiens would be less than an inch from the goal-line.  

Homo Sapiens cave art
But I bet you knew all of that. It does make us stop and think about our development as a species.  A number of new things showed up in homo sapiens. The expansion of our neocortex, most especially the association cortex, has enabled us to develop spoken language, have self-awareness, problem solving and abstract thinking. (vi)  One of the things which most fascinates scientists is the development of symbolic behavior like cave art, jewelry and statues. We still share a great deal with others in the hominidae family; orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. Some argue that at least the gorillas and chimpanzees are actually the same genus, but that's really a mute point in this context.  While the greater and lesser apes began developing into sub-categories almost 18 million years ago, our oldest known ancestor was first found about 1.9 million years ago. We were obviously the last of the family to develop and, as a result, demonstrated these new attributes.  

But there turned out to be some really negative aspects to this new animal species.  We have developed a taste for killing for fun. We are wasteful. We have become an invasive species. We think we are better than nature and end up hurting nature. We think we are the most important creature and kill others for no reason, destroying entire ecosystems for our simple comforts.  This is very much contrary to other animals, including those of our own genetic family.  The definition of a invasive plant species is a plant that grows exceptionally rapidly, in a place where it was not intended and therefore is in conflict with indigenous species. We definitely fit this definition in the animal world. 

In a Quora.com article about the difference between humans and other animals, the author cited greed as perhaps the greatest difference. 

     Greed! Most animals, excluding the human animal, survive on a subsistence level. As long as their basic needs are met they are content. There may be territorial disputes or disputes over mating rights or squabbles over food, but these are survival drives. There seems to be a lot of peace and serenity once these desires are satisfied.
     Humans, on the other hand, are never satisfied. There is a constant struggle for more. It is not enough to have the necessities of life provided, there is always an insatiable hunger for excess. Mankind seems to have been born with a giant hole in their spirit that they strive through life to fill with STUFF (money, possessions, sex, drugs, status, amusements, food, etc., etc., etc.) This crazed hunger has propelled many great achievements, also some of the world's greatest atrocities. We can't stand to be less than the best or for others to have more or better than us. We'll fight tooth and nail to get ahead, or at least keep up. Most people die never having experienced true long term satisfaction in life. A momentary satisfaction with finally getting “one" is soon displaced with a “need" to have the whole set. It is this greed for more that separates us from the “wild" animals.  (vii)

Just because we, as a species, have the ability to abstract is in no way scientific or even logical evidence that we are special, created by some deity or more entitled than any other species. At best it is evidence that we are the new species on the block and evidence that species do  evolve. The question can be asked: are we an evolutionary success or are we going to be naturally eradicated because we're an invasive species run amuck. My money is on the latter. 


FOOTNOTES:
(i) Smithsonian. "What does it mean to be human?   http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens
(v) Smithsonian Magazine. "The top 10 greatest survivors of evolution."     


#homosapiens  #evolution  #humans  #science  #anthropology  #invasivespecies  #oldconservationist

Sunday, October 14, 2018

Time is running out



More and more frequently we are hearing reports from scientist and experts telling us that time is running out. The last report I heard gave us about twelve years to get our act together. If we destroy the Earth as we know it, the third planet from the sun will continue. It just may not support the wonderful life that has been on it for 3.5 billion years.  To protect nature is to protect ourselves. To defend the Earth is to assure our very existence. 

#environment #nature #sustainability #ecology  





Friday, October 12, 2018

What Gandhi and King can teach us about non-violent resistance


        I was just reading an interesting October 8, 2014 monogram by Mark and Paul Engler entitled "How did Gandhi win?" (wagingnonviolence.org/feature/gandhi-win/) It was a fascinating article which prompted a follow-up article March 17th, 2017 entitled "Gandhi's strategy for success — use more than one strategy" (wagingnonviolence.org/feature/gandhi-strategy-success/). 

        The first thing one learns is the difference between "instrumental" and "symbolic" victories in the world of nonviolent protest and revolution. In short, instrumental is where you gain small practical victories, such as a change in a law. The symbolic victory is when you change the entire political environment so that it is ripe for significant change, such as a country's independence, getting rid of a dictator, or civil rights.

        Gandhi's "salt march" was a 200 mile march to the ocean where "Gandhi waded into the edge of the ocean, approached an area on the mud flats where evaporating water left a thick layer of sediment, and scooped up a handful of salt.   Gandhi's act defied a law of the British Raj mandating that Indians buy salt from the government …." (Engler & Engler, 2014) It was the beginning of the end of English rule in India.


        As a student of history in the early 1960s, I remember that many scholars felt that, after the turmoil this nonviolent act of civil disobedience caused, Gandhi really screwed up the negotiations. It didn't seem that the English gave up anything. But that's just how it appeared. Subhas Chandra Bose, a skeptic and critique of Gandhi's agreement traveled with Gandhi after the pact. Gandhi biographer, Geoffrey Ashe, describes Bose's experience on that trip. He "saw ovations such as he had never witnessed before. The Mahatma had judged correctly. By all the rules of politics he had been checked. But in the people's eyes, the plain fact that the Englishman had been brought to negotiate instead of giving orders outweighed any number of details."

        Winston Churchill reaction demonstrated the truth of Gandhi's victory. "In a now-infamous speech, Winston Churchill, a leading defender of the British Empire, proclaimed that it was 'alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi… striding half-naked up the steps of the Vice-regal palace… to parley on equal terms with the representative of the King-Emperor.' The move, he claimed, had allowed Gandhi — a man he saw as a "fanatic" and a "fakir" — to step out of prison and '[emerge] on the scene a triumphant victor.'" Gandhi had risked his life and nonviolently gone after the ultimate prize . . . the English now had to deal with he and his people as equals! Now he could talk not just about salt but about national independence!

        The authors point out that many scholars felt/feel that Martin Luther King, Jr gave away the store in the 1963 Birmingham Agreement, but the astute student realizes that anything they got in the Birmingham Agreement was a drop in the bucket compared to the big prize – the government was forced to deal with black people as equals. That set a precedence which would lead to greater victories.

        I haven't finished their second article, but, as you can see from the title, it addresses the fact that to effect dramatic and permanent change you must use a combination of strategies. There is no doubt that the symbolic victory is exceptionally important but momentum is maintained by the instrumental victory, which generally gains its negotiating position via the symbolic. This is why we need young people, as well as the rest of us, participating in nonviolent civil disobedience providing moral, symbolic victories, while at the same time we need the highly skilled and motivated attorneys to provide the essential instrumental victories.

        "Gandhi's victory in 1931 was not a final one, nor was King's in 1963. Social movements today continue to fight struggles against racism, discrimination, economic exploitation and imperial aggression. But, if they choose, they can do so aided by the powerful example of forebears who converted moral victory into lasting change."

        Two articles well worth reading.  


#civildisobedience  #socialactivism  #history  #nonviolentdisobedience  #resistence  #martinlutherking  #mahatgandhi   #wagingnonviolence







Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Considering Runaway Capitalism

      In our current social-economic climate, profits reign supreme.  It is called capitalism which has become extreme; to the point of excessive. Some might call it anarcho-capitalism, (i) but I'm not opening that can of worms. Let's call it runaway capitalism.  Capitalism is a political/economic system where a country's wealth and business is controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the people or the state. As with feudalism, the constant struggle among the wealthy slowly eliminates the weaker or less wealthy until everything is owned by a small number of individuals such as a royal family or a few mega-corporations. According to an October 2011 Forbes Magazine article, 147 corporations own everything in the world and "the real power to control the world lies in four companies." (ii)  From this we get the one-percent of the US population who basically own us and everything else in this country.  Capitalism has absolutely no concern for human rights, environment or social justice and equity unless those issues will create capital, wealth, profits for the corporation.  On the political side, these corporations and their controlling owners are going to wrap 'capitalism' in a flag so that clueless peasants - you and me - will feel unpatriotic if we complain or resist. They tell us that they're doing this for the country. Yea. Right.  If you are gullible enough to believe that I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll be happy to sell you cheap.
        Today profits are above all and the end all. This is no secret, and many financial experts would proudly agree. Profit trumps (no pun intended … well, maybe just a little one) compassion, humanity, clean water, clean air, human rights and social justice, as well as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (iii)  Profits also stand in stark contrast to nature and the environment; destroying entire species and ecosystems in the name of profit.  In March of 2017, Mr. Trump signed his 19th executive order entitled "Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth".  In this case "economic growth" is a euphemism for "more profits for the oil companies".  We all know that, so I won't bother to argue its veracity. The order directs the Secretary of the Interior to review rules which regulate oil and gas drilling in national parks and to "repeal, suspend or rescind them if they are found inconsistent with the president's energy goals".  (qui autem volunt regem esse) This order directly threatens entire ecosystems and many of our national parks, but it means profits.  Lots of profits at the expense of  nature and 'We the people'.  Our only hope against such an attack is the Wilderness Act of 1964 (iv) and the National Park Service Organic Act (v) which established the National Park Service in 1916 and gave it the mandate "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
        I would suspect that a majority of US citizens know nothing other than extreme capitalism and believe that this is the way it has always been.  The whole super-capitalism campaign didn't began ramping up in the United States until I was a small child during the post-World War II period; late 1940s. The period of what we might call the Robber Barons coincided with industrial growth in the late 19th and early 20th century.  It is, however, really different than our current capitalistic growth. That was much more of an elite oligarchy.  That, however, is another story.  Suffice it to say, our current spiraling out of control started right after World War II.  We are told that it must be this way. The truth, if one wants to do a bit of reading in anthropology and history, is that this is not how it has always been, nor does it necessarily need to be this way.  Actually, there are still a couple of hunter-gatherer societies in existence that actually have shorter "work weeks",  a better social environment, and no taxes.  (vi)
        We began our destructive march toward our current crisis when, some 12,000 years or so ago, we started becoming farmers and claimed ownership of the land; forsaking our roots as a part of the magnificent life on Earth known as nature. The concept of ownership created a have-versus-have-not society and the trouble began.  (vii)
        I must interject here that not all societies followed this path.  For example,  along with the hunter-gatherers still in existence,  many North American tribes did not have any concept of ownership before being introduced to the concept by European invaders.  Some of these tribes were actually far more socially advanced than the European invaders in areas such as participation in government, social equity, women's rights and social welfare.  You must remember that most of the European countries that invaded North America were barely more than feudal. They still had royalty, ownership by the wealthy, and little to no social justice or safeguards. In many ways the people the Europeans were calling uncivilized were not the uncivilized ones. Charles Hudson, in Chapter 4, Social Organization of his book, The Southeastern Indians(viii)  noted the tribes being more politically advanced than the Europeans and there actually being women's right.  We still don't have women's rights and the ancestors of the European invaders are still looking down on these indigenous peoples.   "The council of the chiefdom was a thoroughly democratic body. Anyone who wanted to could speak, no matter how distasteful his views to the others, and all the people would listen politely until he had finished. The council did not meet to legislate or to adjudicate - they met to reach consensus. . . . . it simply sought harmony by conciliating differences." (viii)  No one was coerced or punished for disagreeing.  In Europe you could still literally lose your head for disagreeing with the royalty.  Today we are coerced and socially punished for any statement, no matter how much evidence or logic, that contradicts the edicts of the wealthy one-percent.
        Religion must also take much of the blame. In the Christian's Bible they are told that their god said "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion …." (Gen 1:28) That this was the beginning of our downfall is my opinion, and there are many highly regarded anthropologists out there who would agree with me. However, this isn't the purpose of this monograph. I share this opinion by way of explanation of how we got where we are. It was an easy step from land ownership and the profit motive to our current oligarchy where we are made to feel obligated to work for the few who profit, causing us to accept the rape and destruction of our marvelous world. We have become the instruments of our own destruction.
        Life is the result of nature. It is neither created nor sustained by corporate profits. No corporation, no matter how big and powerful, can create or sustain life. But that isn't their problem. Their problem is to somehow obtain the lion's share of the market and make a profit. If that means destroying water, air and soil, so be it. The problem of survival becomes our problem. We have permitted ourselves to be made serfs to the lords of profit. They have convinced the vast majority of people that the world would stop turning if we don't sustain them by greater and great consumption.  But we can't sustain continued greater and greater consumption, and, if we use common sense, we know that there is life apart from this capitalistic nightmare.  In my blog "What will really kill us?" (ix) I told about how in Ireland we had a bank strike that lasted almost six months. The banks assumed that the economy would come to a screeching halt without them.  Not so. People found other ways of carrying on business without the banks. In fact, data showed that the Irish economy actually prospered during the bank strike.
        Through all of this chaos nature has been right here for and with us. It gives us life, and we destroy it.  I am thoroughly convinced that if we were to renew our relationship with nature; if we were to return to being a part of nature as opposed to attempting to control, subdue or overcome nature for the sake of profit; we would find new and creative ways to sustain life on this fragile little ball hurling through space and return to our rightful place as a part of this magnificent world.
.
FOOTNOTES.
(i)  https://www.libertarianism.org/encyclopedia/anarcho-capitalism
(ii)  https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org      Oct 26, 2011
(iii)  United States Declaration of Independence.  1776.  Independence was declared on July 2nd.  Congress approved the Declaration on July 4th. but it was not signed until August 2, 1776.
(iv)  The Wilderness Act of 1964 was written by Howard Zahniser of the Wilderness Society and protects over 9.1 million acres of federal land.
(v) The National Park Service Organic Act,  August 25, 1916  established the National Park Service.
(vi)  my blog "Hunter-gatherers - the original affluent society.  2nd February 2018.  http://oldconservationist.blogspot.com/2018/02/preface.html
(vii)  Bodley, John H. (2015).  Victims of progress.  Rowman & Littlefield.  NYC.
(viii)  Hudson, Charles. (1976). The Southeastern Indians.  University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville, TN.  p. 224.
(ix)  my blog "What will really kill us?" was published on 9/14/2018 and can be found at www.oldconservationist.blogspot.com


#capitalism  #humanrights  #nature  #anthropology





Monday, October 8, 2018

Chester's sister cleans up. Shouldn't we.

Chester's sister visited the deck today. (i)  She didn't even try to go up the slender shepherd's crook to get to the bird feeder, but was content to eat the seeds that the birds had dropped.  People say that birds are dirty and messy.  Actually their dirtiness could be argued but they do tend to be messy. Do you think you would  be any less messy if you couldn't eat with your hands?  The thing about the bird's mess is that there is always some other animal quite ready and willing to clean it up, like Chester's sister.  Humans seem to think that such mess must be swept up, thrown in a trash can, tied up in plastic and taken to the landfill.  What a bloody waste!  Other animals may be messy, but the homo sapiens is by far the most wasteful of all animals.  Sadly we equate messiness with wastefulness. Obviously that's not true. Even if humans are the neat-freaks of the animal kingdom, which I very seriously doubt, we are still by far the most wasteful.

  1.           In 2013 alone homo sapiens sapiens (that's us) in the USA put 167 million tons of trash into landfills.  On an average each of us will wrap up 2.89 pounds of trash (ii) each day in a plastic bag that will take around 1,000 years to decompose and send it to a landfill. The way I see it, that's not only messy but unbelievably wasteful, and we haven't even mentioned the damage we do to the environment by this behavior. Here in our Hopkinsville woods a number of varieties of birds - black-capped chickadees, purple finches, house finches, nuthatches, titmouse and woodpeckers among others - come to our feeder and drop some seed and lots of shells on the ground as they feed.  Those who can not directly access the seeds - squirrels like Chester, his family and friends - feed on the seeds and shells that are dropped. How fortuitous.  What they don't eat goes into the soil to either rot and provide nutrition for other plants or start a new plant that will grow and provide food.  This isn't wasteful. This is the way nature works.  We still haven't figured out that we're not smarter than nature.
          In the wilderness a predator kills another animal for food.  Each species of predator consumes, saves and protects its kill slightly differently, but there's no doubt that it's pretty messy.  The animal that made the kill is the first to feed and may protect the carcass for some time.  Scavengers and others will feed on whatever is left.  The only thing they might leave will be things like bones which are too hard for most animals. The bones will fairly quickly decompose providing nutrients to the soil. Some years ago a visitor to Glacier asked me about a kill site they had witnessed.  They told me that nothing was left but some hair and blood that had soaked into the ground.  That, I told them, meant that a Wolverine was involved.  Either the Wolverine made the original kill or finished the carcass. A Wolverine will eat everything including the bones. This is nature's way.  Messy, but definitely not wasteful.
          Let's compare that to a human hunter killing  a deer.  Of a 160 pound deer the hunter will harvest only 35-70 pounds of meat. (iii) The rest will either be left in the woods or bagged and sent to a landfill.  Using a plethora of data and information, (iii) I'm estimating 50-60 pounds of entrails will be left in the woods.  That's actually good since that will feed other animals.  What isn't particularly good is that, staying with  the example of a 160 pound deer, this leaves 30 pounds of deer parts that will be bagged and sent to a landfill.  (160-(70# meat+60# entrails))  Now we have to consider that 6,000,000 deer (iv) are reported killed by hunters in the US each year.  That means 180 million pounds (90,000 tons) of deer parts are wasted and thrown into landfills.
          When I left Ireland in 1974, every part of an animal was used. We had black and white pudding (blood and brains), tongue, kidney pie, and a wide variety of foods not frequently seen in the US today. There isn't a lot to chickens feet but my Grandfather, from County Donegal, Ireland, ate what was there.  "Waste not. Want not."  Even bone marrow was harvested.  Bone was about all that was thrown away.  I have no statistical proof, but I have the distinct feeling that most Americans today are too squeamish to eat anything but ground meat and prime cuts.
          We may not be as messy as our fellow animals but we're definitely the most wasteful.  In the US the Department of Agriculture (v) calculates that we waste 31% of our food or about 133 billion pounds.  In May 2017 Feeding America, a hunger advocacy group, reported that 72 billion pounds of food is wasted in production, manufacturing and distribution and 54 billion pounds wasted at home. (vi) They didn't even guess at restaurant waste! You and I have seen that, haven't we?  Researchers at Johns Hopkins University found that the wasted food in the US would actually provide a daily diet of 2,000 calories to 84% of the adults in the country. (vi)
          Well,  Chester and his family have cleaned up after the birds and I cleaned my plate at lunch.  As my Grandmother loved to say, "I ate everything off my plate but the posies."   How did you do?  How we avoid waste is vital whether it is not wasting food so that we can feed millions of hungry people or avoiding sending stuff to the landfill that is polluting our water and killing our environment.  The next time you go to a store and they put your purchase in a plastic bag, the next time you start to buy a disposable item, or the next time you start to throw away food, think about Chester's sister and how you might behave differently and make the world a better place.
FOOTNOTES: -----
(i)  Chester is the slightly pudgy squirrel whom many of you have seen in my posts.
(ii)  https://archive.epa.gov  Municipal Solid Waste
(iii)  Data from  PA.gov, KY.gov and m.state-journal (KY)
(vi)  https://recipes.howstuffworks.com

#environment #sustainability #nature #ecofriendly #green