A Forgotten Constant

I think it's a shame that the humanities leaves out human interaction and relationship with nature. We become who we are and develop as we do as a consequence of our natural environment. Human development and progress are inextricably linked, I think. But maybe that's the problem. Maybe our dependencies, reliance and interactions with nature are so permeable, so overarching, that they are forgotten -rather, not taken as a given, but regarded as a constant to be ignored... which may not be so constant.

And now, a lamentation of sorts in the words of Thoreau:

Here is this vast, savage, howling mother of ours,

Nature, lying all around, with such beauty, and such affection for her children,

as the leopard; and yet we are so early weaned

from her breast to society, to that culture which is exclusively

an interaction of man to man.

Outdated Aruguments

In October of 1998, the International Food Information Council published an article addressing food biotechnology and the environment. Their claim was that food production for the world's growing population takes its toll on the environment -an indisputable fact. Erosion of rich topsoil, pollution from farm chemicals, depletion of water supplies, adulteration of graze lands and deforestation all plague the natural world. They argue that these unfortunate aspects of modern agriculture could be completely eliminated, that the environment can be spared via... biotechnology (yeah, I thought they were going to say organic farming methods too).

So, the article goes on to list various reasons why biotechnology is a godsend for the environment. Some of these arguments are legitimate while others seem a little short-sighted. And then I came to section where they list how biotechnology and its use in agriculture and plant breeding has already been a huge success -and I couldn't help but laugh out loud. From the vantage point of 1998, American tree breeders had triumphed, producing, with the aid of genetic engineering, a Dutch elm tree immune to Dutch elm disease and an American Chestnut tree protected from chestnut blight! They tell how Brazilian eucalyptus plantations enjoyed a 112% yield increase since employing modern cloning techniques! And at this point I'm on the floor laughing 'till I cry (not literally, but I could have been).

So, yeah, two new breeds of Dutch elm were produced via cloning techniques, which was a major breakthrough, but has since not helped the forests of native American elm trees. The disease was brought to the US via exotic beetles carrying an exotic fungus that wreaked havoc on trees in Europe. It was introduced to elm plantations in America, where vast monocultures of elms were grown for lumber and were produced by means of root grafting, so that sap might be exchanged underground from one tree to another. In short, a disease was introduced into an artifical, homogeneous elm forest, in which every tree was attached to the other. Of course, it spread like wildfire, and of course the creation of a disease-resistant variety is a panacea for owners of tree plantations... but this did nothing for American elm trees in forests, and Dutch elm disease continues to be a threat today.

The creation of an American chestnut tree resistant to chestnut blight has a similar story. I don't deny that the existence of a resistant tree might still prove to be beneficial or even crucial to the tree's survival. Since 1998, however, the American Chestnut has been listed as an extinct species for all intents and purposes. Individuals still exist, but these trees will never make it to the stage of viable reproduction. The species is as good as dead today -despite the miracle of bioengineering 12 years ago.

The story about the eucalyptus plantation is true enough. Plantations in Brazil have flourished with the introduction of this high-yielding variety of tree... and the local environment is suffering for it. This past September, The Global Justice Ecology Project compared the eucalyptus in Brazil to the kudzu problem in the southern states of the US. They claimed that a South Carolina-based company had the "muddle-headed idea" to plant 330 acres of Australian eucalyptus genetically modified to withstand cold weather. They said that "[t]he idea is that the tree, native to Australia, could be used commercially to make paper and as fuel for power plants. The Summerville, S.C.-based ArborGen, says the hybrid it would use can't easily reproduce. People thought kudzu was a good idea, too."

The trees, aside from taking over space and crowding out native species, have robbed native wildlife of food and shelter resources, threatening Brazilian ecosystems. In addition, even when the eucalyptus is controlled, this genetically-engineered "supervariety" requires water like you wouldn't believe! True, output will increase, but substantial amounts of water are needed to support this output. Currently, one of the wettest places on earth -the Brazilian rainforest- is running out of water... But back in 1998, this marvel of biotechnology had saved the world!

Not all of the article's points were so very flawed. The benefits to the pharmaceutical indistry that the authors point out have proven to be very useful in today's medical world. Other arguments about the need to replace chemicals and fertilizers with GM plants and the impossibility of supporting a growing population without increasing yield per acre via bioengineering are still debatable and highly contested today. But these examples I've presented here, as well as others that I didn't mention, just go to show that, in some instances, only time will tell.

Livestock to Raise Greenhouse Emissions

Experts are speculating -as they are wont to do- that soaring international livestock production could single-handedly release enough carbon into the atmosphere to exceed recognized "safe" levels by 2050. A recent study combined figures for livestock production in 2000 with projections for population growth and meat consumption by 2050. The study found that the livestock sector's emissions alone could send temperatures above a 2 degrees Celsius rise -the rise in temperature recognized as the threshold for destabilization (the more conservative estimate is that the livestock sector contributes only 70% of this 2 degree rise). The projections even took into account increased efficiency of grain production.

Canadian researchers have called on governments to prioritize and reign in the livestock sector with new policy. For instance, they suggest a shift away from raising ruminant animals, such as cattle and sheep, to poultry and well-managed fisheries and aquaculture ("well-managed" being the operative adjective). And -because we all saw it coming- they suggest an across the board reduction in per capita consumption of meat and animal products, something they say "may be particularly feasible and advantageous in developed countries."

Sea Slug DIscovery

A new species of sea slug has been discovered by Jeff Goddard, a marine scientist working on a project with UC Berkley. Its name is Flabellina goddardi and it measures only about 30 mm long when stretched out and crawling. You can read about this new discovery at http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/41826.
Yay for nudibranchs!

Wither the Wheat

Uncontrolled fires and the worst drought ina century have sent Russia's farmers scrambling to bring in the wheat crop this year. At the end of August, Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, announced a temporary ban on grain exports from the country in an effort to increase food security within the nation's borders and to keep prices stable. Despite these efforts, Russian citizens are already seeing the effects of the bad harvest, with their beloved kasha -or buckwheat- disappearing from grocery store shelves. This has sparked a wave of panic-purchases, hoarding and speculation by the Russian people who, form past experience, have witnessed government trouble following the scarcity of staple commodities (flour, sausage, table salt and vodka to name a few).

But the trouble isn't contained within the nation's borders. With the absence of Russian wheat in the global marketplace and the increased demand of grain imports into Russia, the price of wheat has been steadily rising -and with the increasingly dismal projections for Russia's wheat crop (even now only 30% of the allocated cropland has received enough rainfall for a winter wheat planting) the situation looks to only be getting worse for consumers. In wealthy nations, where food dollars account for only a fraction of the family income (7% in the USA), this rise in grain prices is a nuisance, but in less wealthy nation, food dollars can account for as much as 80% of total income, making a rise in the market price a very big deal. Riots in Mozambique have already erupted earlier this month in response to a 25% increase in the price of bread.

At the same time, there are those who secretly enjoy Russian farmers' misfortune -namely, other wheat farmers around the world. With the price of wheat being driven up and the increased demand in not only Russia and Eastern Europe, but all over the world, Framers in the United States and Australia have much to gain. Already, Egypt, the world's largest importer of wheat, has committed to purchasing 225,000 metric tons of wheat from the US for a price 5% higher than a month ago. The UN has raised export estimates for the US to43% after Russia's wheat forecast dropped 10% at the beginning of this month. US corn is becoming more profitable as livestock producers switch from other grains to corn-feeding their animals and despite a dry season and expected locusts later in October, Australian farmers have made a strong start and expect to profit from increased exports as well.

Genetically Modified Salmon

The US Food and Drug Administration has delayed approval of a commercial genetically modified salmon. In addition to determining whether or not this fast-growing salmon is fit for human consumption, the FDA is to determine whether or not it would be required to be labels as GM. In a briefing document published this week, the FDA concluded that "the food from AquAdvantage salmon (the triploid ABT salmon) that is the subject of this application is as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon, and that there is a reasonably certainty of no harm from consumption of food from this animal."

UK campaigners, on the other hand, claim that there's not enough conclusive evidence to prove "unequivocally" that GM products have no side effects despite FSA claims that GM foods are subject to "rigorous safety assessments." But what's of most concern to me is the ecological impact that the licensed farming of a "supersalmon." Though the creators of the GM salmon assure the USFDA that the fish are sterile and thus pose no threat to established ecosystems, the fish's eggs have a 5% fertility rate, and so the potential is there in the event that a fish (or two, or three...) do happen to escape into the wild, for competition and interbreeding. Aside from that, there's always the potential that these fish can disrupt wild food chains, harm other fish and introduce diseases and pests to their wild counterparts.

Despite the delay, campaigners say that an approval for the salmon is likely, with stocks expected to be on supermarket shelves in the US by 2012.

Rachel Carson Sense of Wonder Contest

The EPA, Generations United, The Dance Exchange, and the Rachel Carson Council Inc. announced their annual poetry, essay, photo and dance contest at the end of this summer. The aim of the contest is to encourage a shared sense of wonder at nature between generations, and so all submissions are to be the work of teams consisting of two or more persons, some older and some younger. The creative work should then express the sense of wonder that the team feels that some aspect of nature evokes within them. Dance entries are a new medium this year and all are encouraged to participate. Voting for winning entries will take place until November First, and you can find out more at www.epa.gov/aging.resources/senseofwonder.

Mechanizing the Machete

For the last five centuries, Brazilian sugar cane has been harvested by hand via the traditional method of field hands setting fire to the brush and then descending upon the harvest with their machetes. This, however, is quickly changing, as more than half of Sao Paulo, Brazil's' largest sugar-producing state, harvested with machines during the 09/10 season. This transition was driven both by increased competition and tougher environmental laws. Brazil is tremendously successful in its sugar cane production, and hopes to further expand its international market, but to do this, it has to keep up with regards to efficiency. In addition, the Brazilian government has instituted new environmental laws that discourage the practice of first burning the fields before harvest. Setting fire to the fields clears out the underbrush and runs out the mice and snakes before workers go in to harvest, but these fires also contribute exorbitant greenhouse emissions and unnecessary air pollution. Moreover, the country wants to be above reproach by other countries for its environmental practices, if it aims to expand its international market.
But there's a downside to all of this. First, one harvesting machine can replace 300 workers, increasing efficiency dramatically, but at the same time putting hundreds of people out of work. And second, the pressures by small farmers to purchase the expensive farming equipment often prove to be too much. The initial investment farmers must make in purchasing a harvester is rather high, and though this is a boon to machine manufactures, many smaller farmers are unable to provide even sufficient collateral.These small farmers, unable to afford the pricey machinery, are forced to enter into partnerships with larger companies, or to search for a new line of work. Furthermore, the government is aiming to completely phase out cane cutting by hand by 2014, making urgent the switch to machinery.
Sucks, doesn't it?

Vampire Killing Spree in Peru

The BBC recently reported 500 attacks and the death of at least four children in communities of the remote parts of Peru due to attacks by rabid vampire bats. Peru's health ministry consequently sent emergency teams to help vaccinate villagers in the area plagued by the rabid bats. Such incidents in the past among vampire bats, at least in the Amazon, have been linked to deforestation for cattle ranching, which has dramatically expanded in the region over the past few decades, as the bats will turn from their usual diet of wildlife as natural habitat is destroyed. The highest toll of these rabid bat attacks in the Amazon was 73 deaths back in 1990.
So, control of the bat population is a bit of an ethical conundrum. We obviously have a problem on our hand because we can't let bats attack people (and I'm sure the experience isn't pleasant, rabid or not). Then again, you can't help but feel bad because it's, in large part, our fault... but so are many things...

A Road Runs Through It

The Tanzanian government is making plans to construct a major commercial highway through Serengeti National Park. The 480 km road would link the Lake Victoria area with eastern Tanzania, bringing, what the government believes will be, essential economic development to the region. The construction of such a highway would link more remote, rural areas to a major road network, allowing transport of people and goods, linking farmers and markets. Sounds pretty good, right? Well, some people don't seem to think so.

The project has met fierce opposition from the tourist industry as well as from environmentalists. Numerous environmental groups oppose the project, not because they feel that progress and development shouldn't take place, but rather because they don't feel that the Serengeti is the best place to do it. See, through this road would allow for a much needed connection between rural communities and commercial centers, at the moment it's serving as a pretty vital ecosystem. The road to be built would bisect the path of the renowned annual "great migration" of wildebeest and zebra, during which millions of animals migrate between the Tanzanian Serengeti and Kenyon Masai Mara in search of fresh water.

Needless to say, a simple memo telling the vast herds of animals that they will need to take a detour from now on probably isn't going to cut it. It also goes without saying that, if this be the case, problems will inevitably result. Possibility number one: there will be parts of the year during which the road will be inoperable for weeks on end due to herds of animals traversing it. And then there's the issue of roadkill in the form of endangered cheetahs (and honestly, I don't think their populations can take even a marginal decrease). Possibility number two: the road cuts the animals off from critical dry season areas. If the latter option comes to fruition, recent calculations show that the wildebeest population, for instance, would likely decline from 1.3 million animals to only 200,000. That's less than a quarter of its current population. Such a decline in numbers could even, according to Andrew Dobson, professor of conservation biology at Princeton, indirectly destroy the region's function as a carbon sink. In fact, even a fifty percent decrease in the wildebeest population would mean less grazing by the animals, increased frequency of fires in the park, and a 180 turn of the ecosystem from carbon sink to a major contributing source of carbon emissions. One could also throw in an inevitable increase in poaching, spread of disease and parasites, as well as the spread of invasive species from the increase in human traffic.

The tourism industry is understandably concerned over the potential loss of thousands of visitors who come to see the great migration. Tourism is Tanzania's biggest source of foreign exchange and a full 50% of Tanzania's tourism dollars comes from Serengeti National Park. Implementation of a highway through the park could lead to the area losing it's status as a world heritage site. The Tanzanian government claims, however, that the road will improve access for tourists.

An alternative southern route has been proposed that would circumvent the park, leave the migration route untouched and would even serve five times as many people as the planned northern road, while fulfilling the same needs for linking regional cities. The alternative route is longer, and therefore a bit more costly, but seems a much better option as it bypasses all of the negative costs associated with the northern road, while increasing the benefits.

Hopefully the Tanzanian government will consider it a viable and worthy front-end investment to build the southern road and leave the zebras alone.

Competition in the Bigger Picture

A former DowAgrosciences employee has been arrested for economical espionage for allegedly passing along to the Chinese government secrets needed to replicate the organically-approved bioinsecticide spinosad (according to the July 26 issue of Chemical and Engineering News). So, I get why this is "economical espionage" and how divulging trade secrets to competitors can hurt your chances in the global marketplace, yadda yadda yadda. What I don't like is that we can't think bigger than that. Sure our chances are better on a playing field tipped in our favor, but in this case a level playing field makes organic food production more feasible and accessible to one of the world's largest and most populated countries. Human society may recognize political borders, but biology doesn't, and encouraging organic agricultural methods seems a surefire way to make positive environmental impacts in a nation with the most mouths to feed.

I understand the illegality of the situation, but lament that it has to be so.

Russian Government protects Korean Pine

The Russian government has recently introduced new measures to protect the Korean pine, in honor of World Tiger Day (July 29th). So what does a pine tree have to do with tigers? Well, though the pine isn't necessarily endangered itself, the demand for the tree for lumber has increased substantially, and the tree is a key species found in the habitat of the Amur tiger of Eastern Russia. So, the government placed the Korean pine on the CITES list, which requires harvesters to have a permit to export the wood. Protecting the tree greatly preserves the habitat that it shares with the endangered tiger. Great round-about way of furthering the tiger's interests, if you ask me. :)

Nature Deficit Disorder

The Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County features a book each month for community reading. The book for June is called Last Child in the Woods: Saving our children from Nature Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv. Much as the title would suggest, this book features the author's speculation that children in today's society are dangerously deprived of nature. Offering up research from environmentalists and child educators, Louv explores the reasons for the childhood disconnect with nature, including a societal obsession with electric technology and changing standards in education, as well as reasons for rethinking and rebuilding our relationship to the outdoors.

As the nature of this blog would suggest, I'm entirely supportive of childhood exposure to nature and view it as an integral part of healthy development. I'm also of the belief that we do live in a society that undervalues the experience of nature and continues to diverge from a connection to the natural world. This stated, I'm therefore very much concerned with the children of today who are not experiencing the outdoors. Regardless of the fact that human society would like to view itself as separate, as somehow independent from nature, it remains undeniably true that all is dependant upon the natural world. Try as we might to deny it, humans are a part of nature. Thus, we are fundamentally dependant upon it for our every need. The tendency to ignore this fact, I think, is what leads us to put ourselves in danger of self-destruction, between a rock and a hard place, if you will. The moment we begin to truly believe we're better than nature, that we don't need it, nature reminds us of just how wrong we are.

So, in the spirit of so many parents who claim to want to give their children the kind of start that produces kind, considerate, socially-responsible and contributing members of society, it stands to reason that we should make sure that the youth of today experience the outdoors. Research shows various psychological and developmental benefits reaped by children to play outdoors, but statistics aside, it seems to me that playing outside is the single best way for a child to learn so many things and to do so on their own. Nature can teach a kid that they live in a world that is so much bigger than they are, that they are simply a part of something with many, many more parts. But then, It can also teach them that they are an integral part of this very large world, and that being an integral part comes with a power to affect change. Children can learn just outside in the backyard that their actions have consequences and that they therefore have a certain degree of responsibility, since this world is shared by so many.

In short, I'm of the belief that there's no better, faster, or easier way to teach a child to reflect on the meaning of life, their place in the world and their social responsibility than by ensuring a thorough encounter with nature.

The best way to prepare a child to function in the world: make sure they get out in it.

The Purrrrfect Scent or What Not to Wear While on a Safari

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that biologists at the Bronx zoo tested two dozen scents and found that cheetahs have fine taste. That is, they are lured by Calvin Klein's Obsession for Men. Yep. Just like catnip. Who knew? Anyway, scientists in Guatemala are now using the fragrance to attract jaguars and it seems to be working.

The take-home lesson? Stick with unscented products when you go outdoors. You never know...

And I was in a good mood today too...

The Consumerist published a report concerning a survey done by National Geographic today titled "Report: Americans Trash the Environment and Don't care." (subtitle "A River in Egypt"). Basically, the survey showed that Americans don't think that pollution, overharvesting of resources, or global warming are really all that big of a deal. In fact, concern over such issues was found to be consistently less prominent in the US than the average for all countries surveyed. Most Americans do believe that our lifestyles and consumption patterns are largely unsustainable (70% of us, anyway) but we're content to let future generations deal wit the mess, because that same majority also believe that the repercussions for our actions will not surface during our lifetime.

Might I mention a certain oil spill in the Gulf?

You can read the article at http://consumerist.com/2010/06/report-americans-trash-the-environment-and-dont-care.html

It's an odd and difficult conundrum. I believe that artists should profit, that their creative work shouldn't be passed around without their having benefited. It's unfair to deny them such when this is what they've made their career from. But then, it seems the alternative is to perpetuate a flawed system of consumption. For these artists to continue making their living, needs must be created, resources consumed and products made for purchase. It seems wrong somehow to strategically plan development such that there are perpetual needs to be met. Good business, I'll admit, but wasteful in a sense. Wasteful is a good word, I think. This doesn't make previous work any less important or less appreciated, but to create with the intention of abandonment in the future -maybe "abandonment" isn't a good word...

I don't know if I've decided my stance on the issue, but I do know that I have a problem with incessant accumulation. It can't go on forever. I'm reminded of a landfill, where one can only bury their garbage for so long, and then all the space is gone. One can't keep accumulating the new and improved forever. There are those that argue that yes they can, and so they do, but this also requires that they eventually do away with the old. And where does the old go? Where should the old go? The illusion of need appears to persist indefinitely.

On a grander scale, the "new and improved" cannot continue to come into being the same way it does today, forever. Nothing comes from nowhere, though we often opt to delude ourselves into believing otherwise. We voluntarily overlook the fact that nothing in truly inexhaustible. I don't think that any process is truly linear in form, because it's impossible for anything to occur completely independent of everything else.

And so I remain undecided, but convinced that there's a better way, a compromise. Perhaps consumption of creative work will continue without the accompanying consumption of the material. Perhaps there's an efficient way to market ideas and thoughts that will prove just as satisfying to the consumer as the purchase of something new and shiny.

Man Slapped With a Snake

A man has recently been arrested for slapping another man across the face with... -get this- a four foot python in a motel. Now, how he got the snake into the motel I'm not sure I care to know, but I'd like to know which it was, so that I might make note not to stay there.

The two men had apparently gotten into a fight over loud music at the motel in Rock Hill, South Carolina. They'd argued and the victim of the snake slap says he thought the dispute was over, but a few hours later, as he was standing on the balcony, he was tapped on the shoulder and told to "hey, look at this." The man then claims that the snake's mouth was open and it had tried to crawl into his mouth (because that's just where a snake would want to go, right? And if he thought this, he could have just kept his mouth shut, you know). The owner of the snake was charged with assault and arrested that night. The other man peed his pants and had to crawl back to his room.

Poor snake.

Reflections on Consumption: an hourglass

With industry comes

The unprecedented demand for resource

And so ensues unsustainable harvest.

Fueled by the cause of fulfilling manifest destiny

Justified by frontier ethic,

Industrialization reaps the bounty of the land,

Thoughtlessly, Heedlessly, Wantonly.

Without regard for the future,

Without questioning what comes next,

What remains after.

But "after" always arrives

And the unchecked, gluttonous consumption

Will face a stark reality of the finite.

Gone are the days when man can leave his mess,

Simply move on toward the sunset, the horizon,

For he soon discovers that the world is round.

Inevitably, his actions must be assessed,

His mess must be accounted for.

Everything must come from Somewhere.

Nothing ever goes Nowhere.

Sociobiology

Sociobiology, as laid out by E.O. Wilson, is always a controversial discussion topic, and I really don't understand why it's so emotionally charged. Sure, I get that people don't care to have their personal, emotional exepriences somehow made less by attributing them to evolutionary biology, but I don't think that having a way to explain emotions and social interactions makes their experience any less. It's like telling a teenager that all their angst is just due to hormones. In a way, it's comforting that one can attribute restlessness to chemical interactions in the body and know that one isn't crazy. To be perfectly honest, I think it's rather pompus of humans to shy away from sociabiology, yet feel no hesitation in applying similar concepts to other, "lesser" species. We should either give the animals more credit, or condescend to accept the fact that we may be governed by the same evolutionary behavioral laws that we claim the animals abide by.

The End

So they don't kill each other, in case you were wondering. Bit of a shame really... but they do drive each other nuts and take jabs at each other at every opportunity. In the end, then men agree that rivers are gorgeous, but Dominy thinks that their beauty and ecological function (no small thing) should be sacrificed for the use of the water by humans (providing electricity, controlling flooding and/or drought, providing a lake for people to run their boats on). The Archdruid, obviously disagrees on this point, claiming that humans were getting along fine before the damming of all of these grand rivers and shouldn't consistently place their needs above those of the surrounding ecosystem. And so, these men have to agree to disagree -or rather, agree that the other man is simply wrong and quite pigheaded.

The book ends on a sad note. Brower, the grand Archdruid, is ousted as Sierra Club president. Though he has many admirers, and though members of the club appreciate the work that he has done and continues to do, the majority feel that he is too belligerent, too unwilling to compromise, too focused on his crusade to take into account the opinion of the club majority. And it's always about money too. Brower's been using Sierra Club funds to do whatever he deems necessary to protect wilderness, without regards to the opinions of the members -an essential as an elected president to a club made up of such members.

Though in the end Brower is forced to relinquish his title, I think that the end of the book, though not exactly happy, as it depicts the downfall of this man, shows an important truth. The druids of the world have noble intentions and sometimes dams have to be fought off, but in order to really accomplish anything in the long run, they have to be willing to work with all the other people of the world. Excluding the opinions of the rest of human kind -no matter how ridiculous these opinions may be- is a surefire way to make enemies. And one must remember that we share this world. It's the conservationist's planet, but also the preservationist's planet, and it belongs as much to the Sierra Club member as it does to the dam builder. Concessions will inevitably have to be made, and the negotiations will never cease and never fail to be frustrating, but this has to be accepted by those who care. Dams will be built, but forests will be saved. It's all a matter of priority and diplomatically sharing yours.

Close Encounters: The River

I've just started the Third and final part of Encounters with the Archdruid, called "The River." It begins with a history of the settlement of the Western United States, telling of the many difficulties encountered by pioneers. The principle obstacle to settlement of the area was the limited access to water the settlers had. Survival was possible, but thriving in the American desert, as it was called, was nearly impossible given the limits of the frontier act. Families simply weren't given enough land on which they could profitably raise cattle, because the grasses were so sparse. In addition, unreliable and infrequent rainfall prevented them from setting down roots in the agricultural sense. And so, enter Floyd Elgin Dominy. Born in Nebraska long after the Homestead act of 1862, he's devoted his career to what would eventually make the settlement of the west possible: the dam.

And after the merits of the dam are portrayed in a Christlike light, the reader in immediately presented with the conservationist's view of the dam (and it's hilarious):

"In the view of conservationists, there is something special about dams, something- as conservation problems go- that is disproportionately and metaphysically sinister. The outermost circle of the Devil's world seems to be a moat filled mainly with DDT. Next to it is a moat of burning gasoline. Within that is a ring of pinheads each covered with a million people- and so on past phalanxed bulldozers and bicuspid chain saws into the absolute epicenter of Hell on earth, where stands a dam... Conservationists who can hold themselves in reasonable check before new oil spills and fresh megalopolises mysteriously go insane even at the thought of a dam. The conservation movement is a mystical and religious force, and possibly the reaction to dams is so violent because rivers are the ultimate metaphors of existence, and dams destroy rivers. Humiliating nature, a dam is evil -placed and solid."

Brower, the Archdruid of conservationists he is, falls into this group of dam haters. He counters an accusation of "you conservationists are always against things!" with a calm reply of "If you're against something, than you are also for something. If you are against a dam, then you are for a river."

Dominy, on the other hand, doesn't understand why the conservationists have their panties in twist about it. "Let's use our environment," he says, "Nature changes the environment every day of our lives -why shouldn't we change it? We're a part of nature. " In addition, he goes on to tout the environmentally-friendly attributes of a dam, as well as the benefits they have to man. "Hydroelectric power doesn't pollute water and it doesn't pollute air. You don't get any pollution out of my dams... In addition to creating economic benefits with our dams, we regulate the river and we have created the sort of river that David Brower dreams about. Who are the best conservationists -doers or preservationists? I can't talk to preservationists. I can't talk to Brower, because he's so Goddamned ridiculous."

So imagine taking Dominy, the minister preaching salvation by the hydroelectric dam, and Brower, the Archdruid, and putting them both in a little inflatable raft and sending them down the river into a canyon with each other for company. Aside from being the setup for an interesting joke or reality TV series, this is what actually happens.

Can't wait to find out who kills who first.

Close Encounters: The Island

I've finished part two of Encounters with the Archdruid, entitled, "The Island." The focus of the section is on the development of Cumberland Island and the reader is introduced to a man by the name of Charles Fraser. Fraser's the developer who wants to put a public resort on the island. He's made his living by capitalizing on nature's beauty and making it accessible to the paying public. It is with the introduction of Fraser's ethics that one begins to wonder if the right things can be done for the wrong reasons. I am most certain that this is true, but then, in this case, what is right and what is wrong is left more subjective, depending on the worldview you take.

Brower is still around in this chapter. He visits Cumberland Island with the narrator and the two tour it with Fraser. Brower and Fraser are juxtaposed and it is obvious that their beliefs are different, but they are perfectly amiable and agree on much with regards to the island. Brower, the staunch conservationist he is, believes in keeping the island as it is, untouched because of its intrinsic value to the world. Fraser, on the other hand believes that the island should be left largely untouched -save for a small area for cabins and a marina and some playground equipment- purely because of its aesthetic value, because that's what makes him money. It was said about him that he "is a conservationist in the real sense. He wants to harmonize a modern environment with all of the endowments of nature. " (then again, it is also said that "Conservation to Charlie means, in great part, that Charlie should not be bitten by a mosquito.") Fraser's beliefs are obviously driven by an anthropocentric worldview, as he seeks to preserve nature's "endowments' for the sake of their enjoyment value to humans. He's even hesitant to spend the night on the island in a brand new camper, as he's not one used to "roughing it."

Due to their differing approaches, Brower and Fraser, though agreeing on most issues, don't agree on everything. Brower, seeing the ecological benefits of having a marshy wetland on the island is all for keeping it there, while Fraser would see it drained, or turned into a man made lake, as it's more use to the public that way. In this chapter, the reader is also introduced to the idea of the "druid." This term is a reference to the historical druids, who worshipped tree spirits. Fraser terms those who he believes to be overzealous tree-huggers "druids. It's a term used in a derogatory way to poke fun at those who believe in trees for trees' sake, rather than for the use they have to humans. Little does he know that the man with whom he has enjoyably spent the day could be defined as the Archdruid.

I've encountered many Frasers in the past, and I question how they should be approached. If it's not obvious already, I'm a "druid" myself, and so agree with the practices of many who aim to protect nature, even for anthropocentric reasons. And for practical reasons, I see nothing wrong with letting them do the "right" things for whatever reasons they may have. Inevitably, however, I think that friction is bound to occur between the two camps at some point, for there always comes a time when preserving some aspect of the natural environment will in no way benefit humans directly and -heaven forbid- even inconvenience us. It is then that the Frasers of the world will not hesitate to bulldoze a natural habitat or fail to take measures necessary to protect an endangered species (especially if said species gives you a rash or has a face only its mother could love). It is then that the druids of the world will have to try their hardest to relate the existence value of these natural resources to the world -no small feat in a culture that is inherently self-centered and rather narcissistic, if I do say so myself.

Sobering News on Primates

I thought that readers of this blog might be interested in this article regarding the current plight of the earth's primates. Now might be a good time to begin working on breaking down the philosophical (and emotionally charged) "species barrier" Midgley writes of so eloquently in Animals and Why They Matter. Aside from such abstract questions as whether chimps have rights and so on, there is the simple fact (or so it seems to me) that this issue does and should matter greatly to us, and deserves our attention and energies. Perhaps it's time for some flannel ecology.

Snow Day

Nothing like two days of canceled classes and over a foot of snow to make you realize just how powerful the forces of nature can be. Just when we think humans are above nature, separate from it, it so kindly reminds us that we are very much simply a part of a much larger whole. We delude ourselves when we believe that we've conquered it with our technology. It's easy to get a big head when we've stopped rivers with our dams, drained swamps in one area and created lakes in another. We irrigate fields to undermine rainfall patterns and hull in snow to ski resorts. And just when we think we can control our surroundings, our world, it decides to remind us that we aren't as powerful as we often think we are.

And in spite of this helpful reminder from the rest of nature, there are some of us who try still to circumvent it. The other animals seem to have it right. Wait it out in your burrow, den or nest, and take the day off -but not us. With our snow mobiles and blowers, with our windshield de-ice sprays and mountains of salt we attempt to literately plow through this obstacle, this nusicince, play it off as if it were no big deal, shrug off the undeniable blow that the elements have dealt us. We an't just accept that our station may not be as high as we'd like it to be. We can't accept that human society can take a break, can be put on hold in recognition of the events taking place in the "real world," that world outside of our little bubble of human society.

I think we're far to arrogant sometimes.

Close Encounters: The Mountain

So I've been reading Encounters With the Archdruid and have finished part I. The book is divided in to three parts: the mountain, the island, and the river. Part one, believe it or not, actually took place on a mountain and was, in short, a means to juxtapose two of the men in the party of scientists. One, David Brower, is the leader of the conservationist organization called Friends of the Earth. He hikes the mountain trails ahead of everyone else in the party while drinking spring water from his Sierra Club cup and complaining about how the Forest Service is the worst thing that has happened to the national parks. His foil is Charles Park, a geologist and mineral engineer who "believes that if copper were to be found under the White House, the White House should be moved." The bulk of the chapter is thus devoted to contrasting the conservationist philosophy of Brower with the preservationist ideas of Park... and I find that I'm reminded of those fond discussions regarding the biocentric and anthropocentric approaches to nature.

Brower believes in the conservation of wilderness for the sake of wilderness, for the big-picture "insurance" it serves to the ecosystems of the world as a means of preserving biodiversity. In an argument with Park regarding the merits of a road leading to Glacier Peak, Brower says that the only way to see the stellar view it offers is to properly earn it -that is, to get there on foot. Park counters with"what about people who can't walk?" to which Brower responds, "They stay home. Ninety-nine point nine per cent can walk -if they want to." Yeah. Ouch. But he goes on to say that he does have a friend who wears leg braces and even he says that for him, it's enough to know that the mountains exist as they are. Existence value.

Park, on the other hand, says that Brower is an extremist and that he can't understand how people will deprive the present generation of resources that could be harvested (namely copper from the mountain, in this case) without devastating repercussions to the natural environment. He advocates a utilitarian conservation approach, wanting to do the most good for the most number, satisfy everyone's need while causing the least amount of harm -then again, his idea of "harm" seems to be different from Browers'. The take-home point, however, is that these guys each believe they give nature respect, but approach the issue from such different starting points (with Brower seeing nature as intrinsically valuable and Park seeing its monetary value) that they rarely ever make a consensus. This isn't to say that they don't. They can abhor the abuses to nature that are most visibly wrong, but just can't agree on what is right... or how right you have to be.

Hello?

So... it's been awhile. A long while. And though I don't think anyone will ever see it, I'm thinking about resurrecting this blog. Being an ES major, this is the kind of stuff I like to think about, and recording it here seems fitting.
So you might be hearing from me in the near future... maybe...
I'm supposed to start reading Encounters with the Archdruid, and I'm sure I'll have something to say about that later.