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.