Saying something nice about humans

     I bet there are a lot of people who follow my posts and blogs and wonder if I can say anything nice about humans.  Well, I do feel that I can. Let me give it a try. 

     Humans have the ability to be very compassionate.  An example is www.humaneborders.org.  They leave water along the routes most used by illegal immigrants going from Mexico to the US not because they want to encourage illegal immigration but because they don't want people dying of exposure and dehydration. www.doctorswithoutborders.org is another tremendously compassionate group of people willing to risk their lives to provide medical care for innocent people caught in the strife of war.   

     Yes humans have the ability to be extremely compassionate. That is wonderful. That also means that we have the ability to end hatred, war, violence, poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc., etc., etc.  Yes, we are capable of doing these things. Isn't that wonderful?!

     Being the new kid on the planet we have some advantages over the old-timers. One of the most important is that we have an expanded brain. This expanded brain not only gave us language capability but also the ability to abstract. The ability to abstract gives us expanded problem-solving skills. This means that we can see and identify problems like pollution and environmental destruction and come up with a solution. Couple language skills with our expanded problem-solving skills and add in our compassion, we are quite capable of working together to address the problems we have created and deal successfully with polution and environmental destruction. 

     Our ability to abstract also gives us greater creativity than our fellow creatures. This creativity comes not only in our artistic skills but in our ability to think outside the box and come up with ways of having a safe, comfortable and enjoyable life-style wthout destroying the  world around us and the habitat of other species.  For example, Arcosanti, a community in east-central Arizona, is an examle of one architect's dream of a city that is comfortable and enjoyable while living in harmony with the nature around it. www.arcosanti.org. When Pamela and I visited Arcosanti we were hosted by an architect student from Chili who came to study the ideas of Paolo Soleri, the founder of Arcosanti, and apply them to the housing shortage in Chili.  I just saw an article about pleasant, comfortable and affordable public housing around the world. One of the examples, I believe, was Chili.  I wonder whether that student had any influence. 

     A few years ago I listed to a Ted Talk by Dr. Yuval Harari, who is an Israeli historian and tenured professor of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. An authority on human history, Dr. Harari holds that if homo sapiens had not learned to cooperate we would now be extinct.  

     Of course we know that other species cooperate. The hunting skills of many animals is legendary.  What most people don't realize that it isn't just big cats and canine - members of the same species cooperating. The grouper and eel cooperate in hunting.  https://fishpain.com/cooperation-between-groupers-and-eels.htm.  The advantage that we have is that we can communicate, we have compassion, we have the technical and creative skills to find a solution for all of the problems and destruction we have caused and make  change. 

     Yes, humans are an amazing animal. Along with the above mentioned attributes we are intelligent and extremely adaptable.  If we so desire, we can totally transform our lives and society to enjoy peaceful co-existence with each other as well as other creatures.  If we so desire, we can use our ability to problem-solve, cooperate and create so that all humans have a comfortable place to live and enough food to eat. If we so desire, we have the skills and ability to create amazingly comfortable habitats for ourselves without destroying the environment and habitat of others. 

     Wow!

Living up to our greatest potential

     Every plant and animal on the Earth, except one, is living up to its greatest potential.  A tree can not be a better tree, nor can any plant be a better plant. They always do their best to  meet their maximum potential; their greatest height, their finest bloom, their best fruit and assure the species survives.  Every animal is the best that they can possibly be.   

     Now you know which animal is the exception. Ofcourse. Humans.  

     Oh, I'm sure you want to argue because it is neither fun nor comfortable to admit that your own species is the only ne'er-do-well, slacker on the planet. But if you get mad and insist "we do live up to our greatest potential"  I am just going to ask "oh, is violence, war, greed, poverty, environmental destruction, etc., part of our great potential?"  

     We have the potential to live in peace and end war and violence.  We have the ability to eradicate all of the man-made conditions that plague the world;  poverty, hunger and starvation, slavery, homelessness.  We have the intelligence and skills to co-exist with non-human animals and protect the environment. Then, if we are living up to our greatest potential, why don't we?  

     You  can give me all sorts of complex theoretical argument, but it doesn't really  matter. All of them are either going to be excuses or the admission that we're either not meeting our potential or a very sad excuse for a living creature.  Are you going to argue that we are meant to be mean, violent and destructive? If not, then we're not meeting our potential.  If you argue that we do not have the ability to do those things I mentioned above, then we are not as great a species as we believe and therefore being a mean, violent and destructive species is the best that we can do.  That, to me, means that we are a very sad excuse for a living creature.  

     If that makes you angry, then we're back to not meeting our potential. Which is it?  

Delusion

     A delusion is a belief or altered reality that is persistently held despite evidence or agreement to the contrary.  To be delusional is characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument. (i) 

QUERY: Could our western society be delusional? (ii)  We are not freer than before so-called "civilization". We are not happier than those who still practice a prehistoric hunter-gatherer lifestyle. We experience greater stress. We work harder and realize less reward.  We have a fraction of free/family time. We may live longer, but it is debatable that we have as good a quality of life.  It reminds me of the movie Matrix (1999) where people actually spent their lives in cocoons from which machines extracted energy. The people only thought they had lives. They knew nothing else so they did not attempt to escape or know freedom.  Sadly we live in a delusional society with the delusional belief that this is the best we can do.  

#Letthesunshinein #imperium_resistere

FOOTNOTES. 

(i) definitions from on-line dictionary. 

(ii)  I purposely did not include all of humanity because there are still some areas that resist western influence and our western society is the only one of which I have first hand experience. 

Hope

   

     Sadly I spend more time than I would like thinking about how I've come to the point of having no hope.  Oh, people love to lecture me and preach at me about how I should have hope.  Equally as sad, is that they really can't give me any good reason to have hope.  

     Well, to all those who have been so upset with my lack of hope I can say 'I see one source of hope.'  Nature. I will have to admit that it is a hope without homo sapiens. Maybe that's why I see it as hope. I still have no hope for humans.  Let me explain. 

     A few weeks ago I was hiking through the desert in the Organ Pipe National Monument. (Yes, the place where Culus Primus is being his usual ***** self destroying the local native's sacred areas as well as magnificent natural wonders to build his useless wall.) I came across an old mine.  Yuck!  Called an historic site, it was nothing more than an area with three holes dug in the ground filled with old mining junk and a cabin, now fallen down, filled with one-hundred year old trash. Wow, I want to save that to show my grandchildren. (sarcasm) 

     The experience was, at first, a real bummer. Then I went down the trail a short distance and saw what was little more than a pile of stone and wood.  My information said that it was the mine store. There was nothing left to really indicate what it was, but I must assume that the author of the park information had a source that told him it had been a store. In any case that lifted my spirits. Abandoned to the elements, nature had brought down the structure with plants rapidly moving in. Take the homo sapiens out of the picture and health returns.   

     Pamela and others keep telling me that the Earth will survive us, which doesn't really justify our continued existence and slovenly, destructive behavior, but makes me feel a bit better.  Here before me was the evidence.  

     Could this be a glimmer of hope?  I'm still pissed that we're causing the extinction of so many species of plants and animals that might otherwise have survived the next extinction, but can I find a ray of hope?  It still doesn't excuse us for the destruction, damage and suffering we are causing the rest of the world until we are finally eradicated. 

     A few years back Pamela and I visited the  Olympic Pennisula.  There we found the Elwha River.  It had, at one time, been damed. The dam destroyed a major salmon breeding river and the impact was devastating. Believe it or not the dam was partially destroyed so that the river could again flow naturally.  Quickly nature set about repairing the human damage, regaining its equilibrium and now the salmon are again making their way up the Elwha to spawn. Take the homo sapiens out of the picture and health returns. 

     C.B. Brown, for whom Brown Mtn west of Tucson, AZ is named  (Cuk Do-ag to the Tohono O'odham tribe), worked hard to keep what is today the Tucson Mtn Park from being destroyed by homesteading, over-grazing and mining.  The reward of his efforts is arguably the most magnificent desert ecosystems in Arizona, if not the entire southwest.  But there is also Buenas Aires and KOFA.  They are not nearly as magnificent but they are examples of how, when you remove the human element, nature can recover. 

     Earlier today some friends visited me at my camp just outside the KOFA Wildlife Refuge. I gave them a guided tour up to Signal Mtn to where the trailhead to Palm Canyon starts. At the top of the short trail one can look up and see the only truly indigenous palm trees in the State of Arizona. On the way I had a wonderful time pointing out all of the beautiful desert plants.  As I was telling them about the desert around them I made the statement "this desert is in pretty good shape considering what it's been through: mining, over-grazing, trampling, military abuse."  It was, perhaps, that statement that spawned this monograph. Remove the human element and health returns. 

     I know it's hard to admit that your species is the scourge of the Earth, but I think that I get most upset with all of the stupid excuses I hear from people unwilling to look realistically at the nature of the homo sapiens. I really get bent out of shape when their entire argument is based upon some archaic deity whom they believe gives us the right to be AHs. We are not more important than other species. In fact, if we were to suddenly disappear the world would not only not miss us but would be much better off. Sorry. This is fact. 

     I don't want to live without hope. No one wants to live without hope. It is a horrible, empty, painful feeling to be without hope. Nevertheless, I have no hope for homo sapiens.  I don't think we have the ability to address our over-population and destructive nature. What is worse, I don't think we have the real desire. We are far to arrogant.  And so I place my hope in the one aspect of this World that has successfully continued for millions of years ... nature. 

     Humans think we're superior to nature. We're not.  Humans think we can do things better than nature. We can't.  Humans have religions that teach that we're other than nature. We're not.  We are a part of nature, and nature will deal with our arrogant, distuctive behavior in its own way and return health and equalibrium to the Earth.  Now in that I can find hope.

Mind the Definition

     I recently read a list of "philosophical questions".  It was interesting. The first thing I noticed was that in the twenty to thirty questions posed, all of them dealt with meaning, purpose, happiness, and love as related to life.  

     Fifty-two years ago I was in a philosophy class where the professor told the class that he would give an "A" to any student who could define the opposite to love no matter what their grade average might be. Heading toward graduate school the next year, I really wanted that "A".  I did get an "A" in the class but not because I showed the opposite to love.  It didn't take me long to realize that there isn't an opposite to love. There was no way to make the definitions work. 

     The only reason I tell this story is that so many of these philosophical questions are really unanswerable. For starters, let's talk about definitions. The Greeks wisely have seven words that can be translated into English as love, depending what one is trying to describe.  

     In English we can't really define the word "meaning".  I was taught that when you define something you never, ever use the word being defined in the definition. One of the internet definitions (I believe it was probably from Google) said that meaning is what is meant. Well, isn't that just helpful.  The word "meaning" is used in at least three different ways in English.  

     We can play the same game with all of the above words and all of the questions in the list. What is purpose?  What is happiness, love and life? 

     The hardest part of any philosophical discussion, debate or thesis is the definitions. I had a few years in my life where I supervised doctoral candidates. I had a horrible time trying to get this truth across. There is never anything easy about definition. If I go out into the woods hunting for food you can rightly say that I have a purpose, but does that mean that my life has a purpose if you define purpose as a spiritual or philosophical goal of seeking fulfillment, whatever fulfillment means? 

     What makes this so very frustrating is that we absolutely can not make an intelligible statement without defining the words, especially abstract concepts. However, I must admit that, since my 1968 encounter with definition, this is one aspect of philosophy that intrigues me most.  Go figure ... whatever that means. LOL. 

Competition and Conflict

 I have been reading two books that influenced me to write this monograph on competition and conflict; viz. Total Freedom, a collection of the works of philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti, and Nadeau and Kafatos' book The Non-Local Universe: the new physics and matters of the mind.  One could, perhaps, make an argument about fate when the point at which I was in both books was talking about conflict and competition.  

     Jiddu Krishnamurti wrote "Man has accepted conflict as an innate part of daily existence because he has accepted competition, jealousy, greed as a natural way of life."   At the same time Nadeau and Kafatos were talking about competition versus cooperation between species and making the point "While emergent cooperative behaviors within parts (organisms) that maintain conditions of suvival in the whole (environment or ecosystem) appear to be everywhere present in nature, the conditions of observation are such that we distort results when we view any of these systems as isolated."  (2)  

     It was one of those moments when I felt that I am not alone in the universe.  Someone else sees the same things I see.  

     Actually it is far more than just the four of us and a few of my friends who would agree. But I'm getting ahead of myself. 

     If you follow me or have read any of my previous work this will not be the first time, not the last, that I point the finger of blame for the human slide to perdition in large part on the characteristics, idealogy and/or influence of capitalism.  Competition is definitely used and promoted by capitalism. 

     Before someone starts pointing out the Greek olympics, Roman Circus Maximus, and Mayan ball games where the loser literally lost their hearts, I am not saying that competition is in any way new or unique to capitalism.   Capitalism makes great use of competition and wants us to believe that jealousy, greed and competition are a natural way of life.   

     Capitalism survives on a relatively poorly educated work force that is trained from childhood that to be happy you must work hard; =df be a fierce competitor in the workplace; and spend more money than you earn to buy things which you do not need but which keep the wheels of capitalism turning and the capitalists growing richer. By keeping the workforce as minimally educated as possible they encourage greed and jealousy. Then they preach that the way to fix the greed and jealousy is to be a fierce competitor. It is so obvious and ludicrous that it is almost laughable except . . . it works. 

     There is really no evidence in nature that greed, jealousy and competition are an inate part of existence.  Being a very arrogant species with the ability to abstract, we have a strong tendency to anthropomorphize just about everything.  If you don't believe this, go to a Disney animal movie.  

     I always find it rather ironic that radical, fundamentalist Christians will adamantly deny Darwin while equally adamantly defending many of his theories and concepts. But, of course, that is the religious defense of capitalism. Many modern researchers may not deny evolution as the on-going development of nature but are finding that Darwin's hostile competition between species is not supported by fact and research. 

     Modern scientific research has realized that Darwin's hostile competition just doesn't exist. In fact, they find a definite cooperation between species.  

     Biologist V.C. Wynne-Edwards writes, "Setting all pre-conceptions aside, however, and returning to  detached assessment of the facts revealed by modern observation and experiment, it becomes almost immediately apparent that a very large part of the regulation of numbers depends not on Darwin's hostile forces but on the initiative taken by the animals themselves; that is to say, to an important extent it is an intinsic phenomenon."  (3)

     From reading the works of current ethologist it appears that this is achieved by adaptive behavior that divides the habitat into ecological niches where similar species can co-exist. (4)  Actually cooperation is the key.  This is confirmed by the works of James Gould and Paul Colvinvaux. 

     Gould, in his book on mechanisms and evolution of behavior, studied African predators and discovered a very efficient non-competitive system in place. He writes that "Carnivores avoid competing by hunting primarily in different places at different times and by using different techniques to capture different segments of the prey population. Cheetahs are unique in their high-speed chase stategy, but as a consequence must specialize on small gazelle. Only the leopards use an ambush strategy, which seems to play no favorites in the prey it chooses. Hyenas and wild dogs are similar, but hunt at different times. And the lion exploits the brute-force niche, depending alternately on short, powerful rushes and strong arm robbery."  (5) 

     Likewise Paul Colvinvaux, in his study of herbivores, found the same avoidance of competition. (6)    

    Of course this cooperation isn't a conscious effort.  There aren't a lot of advantages of being the new kid in the animal kingom. Our fellow creatures tend to have thousands to millions more years of experience than us. The one advantage that we have is that we're the new model. We have a larger cerebral cortex. One of the advanages of a larger cerebral cortex is that it allows us language skills and greater, or perhaps better said, expanded problem solving skills. Our brains have evolved to the point that we have the ability to abstract. That does not forgive our ignorance, or our arrogant refusal to learn from creatures that have survived far longer than us. 

     While we're at it, we can not overlook the truth that we are the only animal species that will hunt another species to extinction and kill just for pleasure.  We think we're so superior, but all of the other species have learned and practice what Mr. Spock so eloquently stated in the movie Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home. "To hunt a species to extinction is illogical."  All of the predator species, who do not have our larger cerebral cortex, do not hunt a species to extinction. 

     When Jiddu Krishnamurti said "Man has accepted conflict as an innate part of daily existence because he has accepted competition, jealousy, greed as a natural way of life."  I'm not sure he had capitalism in mind, but, as the old saying goes, "if the shoe fits, wear it."

     There is no doubt that we have been indoctrinated with the idea that competition, jealousy and greed are a natural way of life. Reality confronts us with the fact that they are not a natural way of life to any other species on the planet.  That should make us question whether or not they are really a natural way of life for humans or whether we have been indoctrinated to accept conflict and the suffering it brings for the benefit of a few who benefit from the suffering they cause. 

FOOTNOTES

(1) Krishnamurti, Jiddu 

(2) Nadeau, Robert and Menaas Kafatos. 1999. The Non-Local Universe: the new physics and matters of the mind. New York. Oxford Univ Press. p. 118 (electronic edition) 

(3) V.C. Wynne-Edwards, "Self-Regulating Systems in Populations and Animals," Science 147 (March 26, 1965): 1543

(4) Ibid. Nadeau and Kafatos. p. 116. 

(5) James L. Gould. 1982. Ethology: Mechanisms and evolution of behavior.  New York. Norton. p. 467

(6)  Paul Colvinvaux. 1978. Why big fierce animals are rare: an ecologist's perspective. Princeton, NJ. Princeton Univ Press.  p. 145

Blowin' in the Wind Revisited

Sitting here sipping tequilla listening to Peter, Paul and Mary sing Blowin' in the Wind in the hopes that it will dull the pain.  There really are lots of perks to living so long, but you definitely pay the price. It seems like yesterday that I was a young activist dreaming, hoping, working and fighting for a better world for all people. I have always been proud of what my generation did in the 60s to get this nation moving in the direction of equal rights for all people. Many of us died. The closest I came to getting killed was the machine gun placements in Washington as we marched. Then I realized that they were too busy watching the young girls skinny-dipping in the Reflecting Pools to worry about me. LOL.  Well, I guess I almost forgot about the night that about ten of us (graduate students) turned out to stop some over-zealous college students from getting killed by trying to extinguish the Gettysburg Peace Light. Police and rednecks were waiting for them. It would have been a blood bath. We stood in the middle. Thankfully I was young enough that I didn't realize how close I came to dying.  But the reward, equal rights for all people, was worth the risk. I really thought I'd depart this life in a more peaceful, equitable world. What a fool!  So here I sit sipping tequilla, listening to Peter, Paul & Mary, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez and the others who expressed our dreams in music realizing that it's all gone now.  It's gone. Were we so naive to think that humans are capable of compassion and treating others with respect?  The questions raised in this song still go unanswered. There's one question not here; viz. how long can we continue to endure this evil before we totally give up hope?  Is hope dead?  Has evil won?   I'm afraid of the answer.

Does life require a purpose and a goal?

     People who have grown up in Europe, Canada and the US after World War II have grown up with the idea that, to be good, successful and happy one's life must have purpose and a goal. On top of this, the society ranks and catagorizes occupations and life-styles and tells us whether that occupation/life-style demonstrates an approved purpose and goal.  Actually, it really only appears to be the society that does this pigeon-holing. Behind it is religion, government, family and the current economic system.  

     A society may require that you have a purpose and it will assign a goal. The purpose is always the promotion of the society. The goal may appear personally satisfying but that's because the society indoctrinates its members to believe that the assigned goal is satisfying. Keeping women subservient is a good example. Patriarchial societies since recorded history began have been seen to work hard at keeping women "in their place."  I bet you anything that it wasn't the young woman's idea that her purpose be to serve her husband and her goal be to make her husband happy, have lots of children and assume that in doing so she is happy.  

     Religions always have a purpose and goal which they impose upon followers. I say impose because for most of history, and in many places today, one does not have a choice of religion. Religion is imposed. Again, the goal is assigned and is generally related to the purpose. For religion the purpose is often compliance, proselyting and fulfills the requirements to achieve the assigned goal. Religion has historically been used by government to control the population. Working together both religion and government have total control over the individual's life. 

     Families sometime require a purpose and goal, but that's usually based upon social and/or religious pressure and requirement. For example, a family that has an especially high place in the society will want the children to behave in such a manner as to maintain their status. Imposing purpose - to maintain the family status - and a goal - to carry on the family business or have a highly admired profession thereby maintaining the family's status - is an integral part of the family dynamics.   

     Capitalism tells us that life must have purpose and goal. Of course the purpose is to provide obedient workers and the goal is to make capitalists richer and richer, but capitalists have most people convinced that the purpose is to make everyone "better off" and the goal is happiness. Just because it doesn't work that way doesn't seem to bother  anyone. Capitalist cleverly convince the populace that any lack of happiness or success is the fault of those who do not agree with capitalism no matter how ludicrous that really is.  I worked hard all my life. Most of the time I worked two jobs to pay the bills. I paid taxes and contributed to the society. But because I believe that capitalism is not good and not sustainable, I am lumped among those who are the cause of anything in capitalism that goes wrong. Always having a convenient bad guy makes them look even better. 

     The fact that the question is worded "does life require..." implies that our society does believe that life itself requires us to have a purpose and goal or it wouldn't ask the question. Those of us whose lifestyle in any way contradicts this social dictum are frequently verbally abused and almost always blamed for every social ill known to the society. Credible evidence not required. 

     So from our discussion thus far we can deduce that modern society requires purpose and goal, but it does not follow that life requires the same. If we attempt to take society, religion, family, economics and politics out of the discussion, I believe that we must conclude that life does not require purpose and goal. In fact, life requires nothing from us. It is to our benefit to be good citizens of nature, but it is not required. We pay the price for any indiscression, as humans in general are paying for our over-population and destruction of the environment, but life does not require that we be good citizens, or have a purpose or goal.  

     Our individual lives experience greater satisfaction when we do those things which bring fulfillment and happiness. That, in itself, requires neither purpose nor goal. Fortunately for nature and other creatures, things which bring fulfillment and happiness are more often than not things which also benefit others, or at least do not hurt others.  Bad things generally come with their own punishment which does not make them fulfilling. But this pushes us into a discussion of right and wrong, good and bad.  I don't want to get into that here.  

     In summary,  I believe that the evidence points to the fact that societies, families, religion, economic systems and governments would have us believe that "life" requires a purpose and a goal. Of course, that purpose and goal are defined by the the society, family, religion, economic system or government, and those entities are the first beneficiary whether or not the individual experiences any fulfillment, happiness or reward.  There is no evidence that life - defined here as the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity and continual change preceding death - makes any demands or sets any requirements.  

Do humans serve a purpose?

     Even the lowly and malaligned cockroach has an important role in its ecosystem and the system would be the lesser without it. Every creature one can name serves a purpose on earth. Sorry bug-haters. Bugs are probably the most important. What about humans?  Do humans serve a purpose?

     The arrogant homo sapiens seems to believe that the earth could not survive without them, when the truth of the matter is that the Earth would begin to heal without humans. We are invasive and destructive, destoying almost everything we touch. Even when we think we're doing something good we are generally doing damage to the ecosystem. The only time that we actually do something that is constructive and positive is when we decide that we need to stay away and keep our hands off an area, species, etc.; i.e. do nothing.

     Can you think of any purpose served by homo sapiens?  I can't.  Our continued population growth and expansion threatens every ecosystem and other species on Earth. So let's change the question to 'COULD' humans serve a purpose?  

     Could we, by some miracle such as getting rid of capitalism, actually change our ways and serve a bona fide purpose?  

     I believe that there is evidence that we have the skills and capabilities to actually change from a destructive to productive part of nature.  I do not believe that we have either the desire nor the incentive. We still believe that technology and capitalism are going to get us through the Sixth Extinction.  We will not consider changing our ways until we  actually witness the death.  Once we are absolutely confronted by reality, then I believe two things will happen.  Firstly, many will turn to religion, praying to their gods for salvation. Secondly, we will try to find a technological solution.  When both of those fail, we might consider changing our behavior.  I would suspect that we are incapable of arriving at that point before it is too late. 

     As to what purpose we might serve, I haven't a clue.  I guess we could become a more assessible part of the food chain, but that isn't something to which any species aspires. Besides, observation and some research has shown that most predators don't really like the taste of humans. Even when an another animal kills us, they rarely eat us.  We evidently don't taste like chicken. 

     We have all sorts of physiological advantages over other species. As we look at evolution, we realize that we are the new kid on the block with some serious changes to the brain such as a larger cerebral cortex. One of the advanages of a larger cerebral cortex is that it allows us language skills and greater, or perhaps better said, expanded problem solving skills. Our brains have evolved to the point that we have the ability to abstract.  Put all this with our prehensile hands and opposable thumbs, and you'd think that there is something we could contribute to the good and welfare of nature and our world. 

     Damn!  There must be something we can contribute ... something that we can do other than destroy.  

Public Land

  One hundred and seventy-four years ago Henry David Thoreau wrote, "At present, in this vicinity (Massachusetts), the best part of the land is not private property; the landscape is not owned, and the walker enjoys comparative freedom. But possibly the day will come when it will be partitioned off into so-called pleasure-grounds, in which a few will take a narrow and exclusive pleasure only, - when fences shall be multilied, and man-traps and other engines invented to confine men to the public road, and walking over the suface of God's earth shall be construed to mean trespassing on some gentleman's grounds.... Let us improve our opportunities, then, before the evil days come."

      As most of you know, despite really enjoying time with family and old friends in the midwest, I almost constantly long for the west which I love so much. I start feeling clausterphobic when I get east of the Mississippi. You are never out of sight of buildings and fences and other signs of human restriction. Since we headed back west, except for one truck stop and a parking lot, we've spent our nights in the open spaces of public land with beautiful views.

      The evil days of which Thoreau spoke have long been here.  East of the Mississippi it is almost impossible to find public land and, while the west still has vast expanses, our current government is trying to sell our land for a pittance to corporate campaign donors  who will quickly put up No Trespassing signs and keep citizens from what is rightfully theirs.  

     Public land is one of the United States' greatest treasures. In our extensive travels, Pamela and I have met a great many people visiting from other countries. What they admire most is our public land - open for the enjoyment and benefit of all citizens. Most of them do not have such a treasure in their home country and they envy us.  Hunters, fishers, birders, trekkers, campers, people of all walks of life and with a wide variety of interest can enjoy our public lands. That ends when our government sells it to their rich friends who will not only deny us access but physically destroy the land.  

     Over recent years sports groups have united with environmentalist groups united with hiker and camper groups united with all sorts of organizations representing we the people to whom this land belongs.  We all need to support these groups and these unions and add our voice.  Protecting our public land is in our best interest as well as that of our children and grandchildren for generations to come.