BEING A TRAVELER: TRAVELS WITH CHARLEY

Three recent short trips have stimulated thinking about the experience of traveling.   

Traveling is one of many life experiences.  For most people, the everyday experiences of life are relatively repetitive and include the basic functions of maintaining a living space, traveling to and from some sort of work,  and performing that work.  These tasks repeat, and the experience  is often repetitive.  Some work tasks involve travel, most dramatically airline pilots and attendants, and these become repetitive in order to be performed safely and with precision. So the point of travel for most people is the opportunity to have an experience different from everyday life. Travel can take many forms including 1)tourism, 2) adventure travel, 3) exploration, and 4) personal development.  These may be combined in the same event,  and be different for different person's engaged in the same event.   

Tourism is travel in which the individual experiences a new environment that is designed, in some way, to attract and cater to travelers.  This includes comfortable accommodations that coincide with the affluence of the tourist, experiences designed to display unique features of the location to the tourist,  including local foods, and an arranged itinerary that ensures the tourist will not get lost or have undesirable experiences.  This may be arranged by a tour guide or other person, or be successfully arranged by the tourist himself.  The key to understanding tourism is the opportunity to experience a new location or culture,  without having to experience significant discomfort or conflict with one's own culture.

Adventure travel overlaps with tourism and has subtle differences.  An activity, an "adventure", is defined which the traveler will experience and or perform, which will challenge the traveler in some significant way.  The experience is created for the use of travelers,  and ranges widely.  It may involve physical challenges like scuba diving, skiing, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, etc.  It may involve a physical endurance like walking across a specified region.  In adventure travel a specified activity is required of the traveler and the experience that results is partly dependent on how the traveler carries out the task.  For liability and other reasons,  adventure travels are always activities that are very likely to be safely performed by travelers,  but are sometimes presented as if they are dangerous in some exciting way.  The traveler's experience with the activity will affect this,  and very inexperienced travelers will, in fact, experience some danger.  Adventure travel is designed and organized like tourism experience but is often designed to create a specific challenge for the traveler.

Exploration is the travel experience in which neither the guide or the traveler can predict the experience that occurs.  This is sometimes seen in adventure travel when a hunting trip, a river passage, or some other journey includes encountering natural events or animals which are unpredictable.  It may also involve travel to places that are unfamiliar without the protective cover of tourism,  including dangerous locations,  or without careful planning.  Exploration adds both additional excitement to adventure travel, and some potential risk, which may contribute to personal exploration,  the last feature of travel.

Personal development is not an intrinsic feature of travel though it is often credited with being so.  "Traveling is broadening" implies that going out of one's comfort zone automatically provides learning experiences in a new environment.  But this is only true when the person is open to new experiences, and the design of the events does not prescribe the experiences.  Personal development  is likely to be more present in adventure or in exploration,  but this depends on the individual.  Personal development can also occur in very simple events that do not have dramatic features or depart from everyday life.  If personal development occurs, it is both  the type of experience the travel provides, and the person's openness to change.  This can vary widely. On a recent trip I visited the Steinbeck museum and was stimulated to read TRAVELS WITH CHARLEY.  

Travels was written as a journey to "learn about America" again.  It is a memoir in the first person, explicitly meant to be a "hero's journey", and begins with an heroic episode in which he saves his favorite boat during a hurricane in Sag Harbor, Long Island.  Steinbeck fitted out a special camper truck for the journey and brought along his dog Charley, a French poodle, hence the title.  The trip lasted three months or so, beginning in the Fall (September?) and ended somewhere around the new year.  Although the path circumscribes the US,  the trip included only certain spots. 

Steinbeck had recently had a heart episode,  felt his energies failing, and tells the reader that the journey is meant to show that he was still vital and able to take on the challenge;  the book provides evidence that this is not true,  that he is not physically or mentally up to the journey, and is a warning to older men that this is probably not a good idea.  Though he  intended to encounter "Americans" along the way to find out about where the country was going,  there are few actual encounters,  and at least half of the book are musings (rants)  about changes he does not like, which could have been written from his room in Sag Harbor. 

He is at his best describing the countryside, as in New England in the Fall with the color changes, which includes his sit down with a family of French Canadians who are picking potatoes in Maine, and enabled by cognac.  The warm fuzzy feeling he reports is more likely the cognac than the people,  with whom he struggled to communicate!

He dislikes people who are stuck in maps, and avoids using them (long before GPS)  and he frequently acknowledges getting lost.   He drives past Minneapolis-St Paul, completely missing the cities, he intended to visit!  He gets lost many other times,  including his arrival back home on Long Island.  His carefree "follow my spirit" attitude is offset by his anxiety about not knowing where he is going.  He dislikes the new highways that isolate drivers from the natural world, but uses them frequently in his hurry to make destinations.  In short, he is humorously inconsistent about how he manages the journey, is not used to traveling on his own, and is unfamiliar with how travel has changed.  A dialog with long haul truckers enlightens him.

He falls in love with Montana,  but it is difficult to understand what appeals to him.  Here his writing is not eloquent, and the magic is not transferred to the reader.  By contrast,  his spiritual feeling about redwoods is eloquently expressed,  including a humorous incident with Charley.  Indeed,  the entire episode in the Monterey Bay/Salinas area of his youth is poignant, and expresses the reality that "you can't go home again".  

Southern CA is completely ignored in his beeline to Texas for a Thanksgiving "orgy".  His wife was from Texas, and meets him at the ranch of some wealthy Texans.  He notes the wealth of the ranch owners and friends, and goes hunting without shooting anything, drinks and eats a lot, but no other "orgy" behaviors are reported for anyone.  Common stereotypes and misconceptions about Texas are repeated, but the Texas that was emerging in the 60s is not described, and there is no sense that he engaged with the state  despite his wife's background.

In the last major section, he goes to New Orleans to observe a crowd heckling a Negro girl who is attending a previously all White school by court order.  He documents the hatred, exaggerated cursing, and general attempt at public display,  along with moderating comments by several locals.  It is a limited journalistic account, very intense, and totally different from the rest of the book.

Steinbeck failed to accomplish his stated mission: to travel back roads in a camper.  He used freeways at times, and slept in motels at least some of the time.  He  met few locals to learn about the country: a total of about eight encounters, mostly casual, some political, but often injected his own view,  and many regions are ignored including much of the South, Florida, much of California, New Mexico, etc. He struggled to get an "overview" of Americans, and claimed that there is something "American" in common with all he met, but could not articulate it.

Travels with Charley was intended to be an exploration and a chance for personal development.  gives clear messages:  An intelligent, talented older man he was unhappy about the changes he saw happening in the world, and did not show much personal development.   An older traveler alone, he had difficulty managing the journey and frequent "adventures" in getting lost, etc.  All these "accomplishments", unintended by the author,  are clearly documented by his honesty, reporting his weaknesses and vulnerabilities.  It provides a useful warning to older individuals planning to save the world, or rediscover it.  "You can't go home again." And the world changes and you must accept it, or be unhappy that it has.

ENVIRONMENT: A PERSPECTIVE ON CONSERVATION

The internet and news sources are flooded with messages about environmental disasters and the need for donations to support this or that organization that is helping to solve the problems.  Some are serious organizations,  others scams, and they attempt to address different, sometimes contrasting, solutions to the identified "problems".  It would help to have a common definition of the problem(s) and related sub-problems.  The most general goal is ensuring that earth maintains a physical state suitable for the continuation of life.  As humans we modify this to: conservation means maintaining the earth so that it allows for the survival of humans.  This is more specific than the first as pointed out by Dunn (A Natural History of the Future) who documents the extensive non-human life forms that also inhabit the planet. 

This task has several features:

Managing climate: changes in climate alter the distribution of plants, animals, and humans, and if extreme may cause mass extinctions or severe population loss.  The recent changes in climate are associated with increased carbon dioxide production from extensive combustion of carbon containing fuels, and other sources.  It is impossible to "prove" this association experimentally since monitoring climate change is not a recurring event.  Various indirect measures suggest that the association is valid,  but freon was emphasized in the 1990s ("hole in the ozone layer"), and significant changes in freon and related gasses did not alter the rate of change.  Use of fossil fuels for energy production is associated with a variety of other events that alter the planet in other ways. Changes in climate have recently focused on average temperature increases which change the relative climate zones for plant and animal life,  and also alter weather patterns. The current distribution of climate zones is recent in earth's history with several cycles of ice ages in the past millions of years.  Humans survived the most recent "ice age" but comparable data about survival of high temperature cycles is not known.  Predictions regarding the effects on life of melting of the polar ice caps and other dramatic climate changes are speculative due to a lack of records of previous events.  Reasonable speculations about the impact of the potential rate of climate change are possible, but must be updated with changes in measured effects.  It is tempting to believe that world wide reductions in use of fossil fuel will slow or reverse climate trends, but the data to support this can only occur in conjunction with actual changes.  The extent to which humans can modify earth's climate is unknown. 

Managing pollution: a variety of chemical substances,  and polymer substances (plastics) have increased dramatically  in usage and disposal in the last 100 years.  These substances now clutter large areas of land, buried landfills, and drift in rivers and ocean gyres.  Micro-plastics have entered the food supply as a result of the distribution.  Many of these substances are produced by modifications of fossil carbon sources.  Pollution due to the creation and modification of radioactive materials as weapons or energy sources is another source.  Pollution has toxic effects on life, including humans, that are different from the effects of climate change.  The extent of human pollution is more easily measured and evaluated for impact.  The relative lack of emphasis on the seriousness of pollution reflects the strong economic impact of altering the production of polluting substances, and the change in lifestyle.  Organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund, and Natural Resources Defense Council try to evaluate and monitor more serious pollution events,  and governments identify "toxic superfund sites" retrospectively to remediate.  There is little effort to prospectively evaluate and prevent toxic production.  Each individual has the potential to impact the economics by reducing or refusing the consumption of toxic products.  So far this has not been a powerful effect, partly due to ignorance of the dangers and partly due to the convenience of these products.

Managing Ecology: Everywhere on earth there are places which once had limited or no human development and now are  urban or semi-urban human environments.  Three factors drive this process: 1) the increase in the number of humans, 2) the economic advantage of urban environments, and 3) the potential protective effects of group living.  These factors have been in play since the "dawn of civilization",  but have greatly accelerated with the dramatic increase in human population, especially in under-developed countries, and the economic advantages.  The changes are offset by destruction of the natural ecology, concentrated pollution, and dangers of human proximity.  This issue is rarely understood as an issue of ecology, and  instead is discussed as "extinction of species", lack of water supply, pollution of rivers, homelessness, and etc.  "Civilization" seems to include the failure of every aggregation of humans (and other species) totake into account its needs for living space, water, etc.  The concept of the individual possession and ownership of land interferes with the understanding the ecologic responsibility of the group (called the "tragedy of the commons" in economics). The planner Soleri proposed urban environments that were somewhat attuned to size and ecology, and was largely ignored.  This problem is evident all across the United States,  but has become dramatic and profound in China were the aggregation of a dramatically larger population for increased economic production has created unsustainable urban environments.  There are too many people on earth distributed unevenly in dysfunctional patterns.  Water supply, pollution, crime, and transformation of land into concrete and structures all combine to alter the human experience.  (There is research on the ways in which rats and other animals coexist in these environments.)

The ecology of plants, animals, and foods.  Urbanization and farming create several confusions about ecology.  "Farming" means that the natural distribution of plant life in a region is altered to favor "food plants" with high nutritional value.  Smaller animals are farmed,  and larger ones are hunted or "ranched" to produce food.  The animals are bred to be better food sources,  and reducing their survival in the natural environment, because of protection on the farm.  Agriculture  made urbanization possible.  But the boundary on modifying animals and plants for food production is unknown, and many important genetic features have been lost, except in residual unmodified plants and animals life.  The relationship between humans and other life forms on farms can be conceived as "short survival zoos".  Plants and animals on farms are maintained for human benefit and sacrificed for human needs.  The original concept of hunting animals for food which required a balanced active interchange is lost.  The remaining "hunting" in most countries, including the US, is limited to defined regions and seasons, where hunters with limited experience crowd together to prove their "atavistic integrity" not the appreciation for the sacrifice of the animals.  In this context,  worrying about the "extinction" of wild species,  and preserving them in isolated game preserves disrupts both the human ecology of the region and the animal ecology.  The struggles of the Santa Monica Mtns near Los Angeles to manage its mountain lion population is an example.  Coyotes have successfully preyed on farm animals for centuries, and now have invaded more urban settings where pets and other foods are available.  They represent the dynamic interaction between humans and animals in a dysfunctional competition.

Making decisions about conservation requires involvement of human groups,  and so the conflicting interests of different stakeholders create political conflicts.  This should not be a problem.  The resolution of conflicting goals is necessary to balance different objectives.  However it does not appear that this has been possible in the US, and in much of the rest of the world.  The strong economic and political influence of the producers and refiners of fossil fuels and other commodities constantly opposes the efforts for conservation that address the possible role of fossil fuel combustion in climate change.  This is paradoxical. The perspective of the earth's total resources says that the store of sources of fossil fuels is finite, and many sites are depleted. The convenience of fossil fuels as a portable energy source gives them long term value.  It seems obvious that the current use of fossil fuels should be regulated and limited not just because of pollution, but also because they must be preserved for future generations. This is an obvious world wide need, but it is generally ignored because the businesses extracting and refining fossil fuels is determined to maximize current profits, and because  countries that nationalize oil production are desperate to sustain this revenue.  This perspective has shifted in the Arabian Gulf oil states who recognize the waning value of their deposits, and are trying to build alternative economic resources.  Whether they succeed is unknown, but many other oil producers who are more greedy have less perspective. 

Electric cars provide a related paradox.  Automobiles, and other internal combustion vehicles, contribute a significant contribution to the current carbon dioxide and other pollution that contribute to climate change.  Various estimate about the importance of their role have been calculated.  Trapping this pollution with catalytic converters is the current solution, an expensive and incomplete one because of cost and depletion.  The proposed alternative was producing cars that run on electricity without an internal combustion engine,  and many golf carts already do that,  using a conventional lead acid battery.  To engineer a vehicle with faster speed and longer range required major changes in the electric motor, and in the battery storage.  These engineering problems have been partially solved,  but do they offer a significant improvement in control of pollution?  A Google search on this question produces conflicting answers as it should.  Renewable energy sources do not account for sufficient charging for current vehicles, let alone an electric fleet for the entire country.  The promotion and rapid acceptance of this alternative was not based on calculations reflecting the entire population and energy sources but only on the reduction in vehicle emissions,  which is total.  Intelligent conservation decisions require the political will to make sophisticated calculations, and avoid letting economic decisions drive the process.  California, which suffered the effects of auto pollution earlier than other states, put in more stringent emission controls, and taxed gasoline to reduce driving, which has mildly improved air pollution, and given rise to its image as a "green" state.  But California produces one third of the oil produced in the United States, how green is that?

Several proposals have come forward to address the issue of land and ecology.  The biologist Wilson proposed the "half earth" solution: to maintain half of the earth's land and sea for biodiversity (https://www.half-earthproject.org). Another concept put forward by biologists is the 30x30, to preserve one third of the land by 2030. (https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/thirty-percent-protect-best-biodiversity-on-earth/) There are several problems with these proposals, beyond the difficulty in getting them enacted world wide.  The academic biologist's notion that the wild places of the world protect biodiversity ignores the reality that certainly two thirds of the current world (not including the deep seas, except by pollution) has already interacted with humans for thousands of years.  This approach amounts to declaring a third or half of the world as a giant zoo or game preserve, and then encouraging its study by designated humans (biologists).  It is humorous to see how blind these proposals are to the self serving interests of those who propose them.  It makes much more sense to understand the human/nature interface and a complex blended zone with different levels of interaction.  In New York, Mumbai, rural Colorado, and etc animals and humans have coexisted for hundreds of years,  and altered their environments together.  Defining "zones of human engagement" and mapping regions for less human engagement is a solvable task which is already underway and creating its own problems.  The Nature Conservancy has purchase land for protection against  human development in many areas.  How much development should be permitted?  If this is contractual, when is protection more important, and when development? The Conservancy (and other organizations) have struggled with this.  The problem is most acute in National Parks, but is seen in other special places as well.  Every American National Park was once a tourist site-seeing attraction and disrupted in some way.   The National Park designation protected the site, and in many cases reversed some of the damage,  but increased the attraction and demand significantly.  Many National Parks now limit total visitors, require reservations, or create other barriers to use.  The trade off between preserving the environment and allowing the experience is increasingly difficult.  Yet these are the natural jewels of our country, and should be available to visit.  It is a difficult choice.  And state parks, national forests, and other "natural regions" have  less intense but similar demands.  How do we set aside regions of the world to not be overrun by human presence and human development, yet allow human participation and experience?  This dilemma is not easily resolved.  If you travel to a popular and dramatic ski area, or to the outskirts of a major National Park, you will see the expensive vacation homes of wealthy individuals who have acquired and built a chance to reside as near the public land as possible. (Or in ski areas, as near to the privately developed region as possible.)  If this process continues special places will be surrounded by "necklaces" of private development that isolates and destroys the context of the place.  This has already been completed in many areas.  Someone visits a beautiful place, and says I want to have a place to visit here all the time,  buys land and builds the house.  (It started long before the Rockefellers created the places that became RockResorts!)  The tragedy of the commons keeps bumping into real estate development!

There is no one size fits all.  The politics of conservation require balancing difficult trade offs for future generations. This is a maturity and political sophistication lost on many current leaders.  The decisions cannot be based solely on greed, nor can they be based on speculative preservation of what one group decides is best for everyone.  

HANUKAH IN PERSPECTIVE

Hanukah (Chanukah) is an exceptional Jewish holiday.  The books describing the events of Hanukah are not included in the Jewish bible (nor the Protestant, but are included in the Catholic versions).  The events are mentioned briefly in the Talmud,  but not any of its observances.  The eight days follow the pattern of other pilgrimage festivals,  during which Jews traveled to the temple, and the holiday supposedly represent the re-dedication of the temple after the Syrian occupation.  Several later historical sources describe a revolt occurring in Judea at around 170 BCE.  This is during the period of the second temple and long after the events written in the other books of the Jewish bible, except Daniel.   So one explanation would simply be that the books of Maccabees were omitted because they were written too late. (Current scholars put the dates of canonization of the Jewish bible texts between 200BCE and 200 AD,  so the inclusion was not prevented by date of their writing.)  Other explanations are also given for the omission.  The Syrian invasion of the territory is linked by some to request by the Tobiads, an assimilating faction of the Jews, which fits with statements in the book of Maccabees that the attacks were against unfaithful Jews.  The result of the Maccabean (Hasmonean) revolt was a brief period of priestly rule during which the borders of Judea were re-established, though later reconquered by Seleucids, and even later the Romans.  

The split in the observance of Jews at that time  eventually became  the distinction between the pharisees, sadducees, and essenes, in the first century BCE.  The sadducees were the priestly class who insisted in their role in mediating observances (even after destruction of the temple) to exert a "ruling" function over the pharisees who favored moderating the terms of observances and eliminating a separate priestly group.  (The essenes, disgusted with this conflict, isolated themselves away from the rest near the Dead Sea.)  The pharisees ultimately emerged the stronger group,  and Jesus was from this group, and many of his exceptions to traditional observances reflect their views.  The Hasmonean revolt did not permanently re-establish the priestly class.

This historical context provides a background and perhaps some clarification for the celebration.  The story of oil which lasted eight days is nowhere in the Maccabee books,  though it is mentioned in later Syrian and Roman histories suggesting that it had become part of the myth.  Maimonides is one of the earlier Jewish references to it in the 12th century.  The importance of the menorah as a symbol of the dedication of the temple is part of the original text.  The dreidel/top has no historical meaning and evolved from a later gambling top and did not become associated with hanukah until the 18th century in Germany. The letters on it (N, G, H, S) were originally related to gambling outcomes,  and only later associated with "a great miracle happened there" (or "here" in Israel).  Gelt/money was not part of the holiday in earlier observances, but was typical of gifting service persons during the winter season, another northern European custom.  Giving money to children was more typical of Purim until the late19th century.  (And chocolate money is a recent American variation.)  Potato latkes reflect another northern European feature,  eating potatoes.  None of the current observances of the holiday have any historical basis, all are the assimilation of European customs.

It is impossible to assign a seasonal date to Hanukah in the way that Passover, Shavuoth, or Succoth are associated with pagan agrarian events.  It seems unlikely that the specific dates of the Maccabean revolt were known, and even less likely that, given the variation in calendars over eons, they were accurately preserved.  The association with the Christian festival of Christ's birth is interesting.  The placement of Christmas at the winter solstice is consistent with both association with earlier pagan holidays,  and also the desire to have a positive celebratory event at a time when Nature is contracting.  But this is much less true in the Southern Mediterranean climate and deserts of Israel and Egypt.  The seasonal variation is more subtle, and the lunar calendar the basis of Jewish culture.  The core observance of Mediterranean Christian culture is the manger scene,  and the evergreen trees covered in snow are from northern European pagan festivals "captured" into Christian tradition (and imported in various forms to the US).  It does not seem likely that Hanukah was a solar solstice festival, that coincided with Christmas.  Rather this calendar position may have been assigned intentionally to associate with Christmas.  Why might that have occurred?

There is no documentation for the following speculation:  In the early Christian era there was a battle for followers. Jews were encouraged to follow Jesus as the messiah, and Jewish leaders opposed this proselytizing and conversion.  The Maccabean revolt is explicit about attacking Jews who, at an earlier time, wished to follow Greek customs.  So it is tempting to suppose that the Christian era rabbis associated Hanukah and the Maccabean history with the celebration of Jesus' birth as a warning to Jews not to be tempted by Christian customs.  This gives a much darker interpretation of Hanukah's importance, which would not be openly acknowledged,  and explains the fact that current customs have no historical context.

This also raises difficult questions about contemporary Jewish life.  Although the Hasmoneans, a Sadducee culture, succeeded in their revolt,  ultimately the more moderate Pharisees prevailed to survive as the contemporary Jewish community.  Today in Israel, there is a political struggle between religious "hardliners" and moderates who do not maintain strict observance.  A similar separation occurs in other Jewish communities,  including the US, where the political significance is more confused.  And some, like the ancient Essenes, separate and observe the challenge from a distance.  Though the observant rabbis of Eastern Europe are credited (i.e., the Baal Shem Tov) with sustaining that Jewish community, in fact the community was destroyed in the holocaust.  The revolt against the Romans contributed to a long period of exile and dispersal in other cultures,  with recurring challenges of assimilation. In Jewish culture there is a constant struggle between maintaining Jewish identity and assimilation,  and Hanukah may present one statement about the choice, though its message is not usually interpreted this way.  Can we Jews learn something from history?

The observance of Christmas and Hanukah have been transformed in contemporary American society.  Honoring the birth of the founder of a great religious transformation has morphed, in our material culture, into an obsessional pressure to present gifts to each other that stimulate the economy.  And family gatherings are challenged by the separation of families over great distances (and sometimes the weather at this season).  Hanukah has yielded to the same pressure to gift and consume,  and struggles with the lack of elegant music or services that compare with Christmas celebrations.  The tendency to assimilate Christian customs,  including "Christmas Trees", that have little relationship to the birth of Jesus, is typical.  Every religious group must decide where to draw the boundary in following various customs.  Do Bahai have Christmas trees?  Do Scientologists have Christmas trees?  The decision is a matter of personal religious and cultural identity.  

Whether Hanukah was intentionally associated with Christmas or not,  the relationship in the calendar always poses the question of cultural and religious assimilation.

ENVIRONMENT: TOWARDS A BALANCED VIEW OF CLIMATE CHALLENGES

DAVID WALLACE-WELLS is a scientist-reporter on climate who recently published a summary in the New York Times. 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/26/magazine/climate-change-warming-world.html

His summary  incorporates more recent data showing that climate change has moderated from previous estimates of 4-5 C. to 1-2 degrees.  Over time this will likely result in a "migration" of plant and animal species (including humans) away from equatorial to more polar regions.  "Everything will move — ecosystems, too. At two degrees, according to one study, more than 10,000 plant species would lose half their habitable area. Every place in every part of the world would essentially trade its current climate for a hotter one" The effect is to alter climate to more (current) equatorial by roughly 12 miles per year or about 600 miles is half a century.  Though measured in European studies, similar effects can be expected in the US,  where more "heat waves" and increased temperatures are expected.  While these are called "heat waves" right now,  they are more properly understood as variations in climate that make previously temperate climates more tropical and equatorial.  The transient high temperatures are the newsmedia's "heat waves".  These temperature shifts will mean enormous relocations of animal life, mostly away from the Equator and toward the poles because animals and especially humans have more limited resources for tolerating extreme heat than extreme cold.
    The changes in temperature are a "fact",  not the reported dramatic changes,  but the gradual shift in averages.  How humans respond to this is unknown.  Predictions of migrations and chaos reflect current events, and short term adjustments.  How many will move,  or use new adaptations, or simply not reproduce in those regions,  is unknown.  His statement: "Regardless of the figure, mass climate migrations will become a fact of life." is not a fact but a reflection of current trends,  which does not include factors his summary discusses. (Gaia Vince has written the book “Nomad Century.” describing climate migration that doesn’t have to look like refugee camps and border walls.)  

The ability of different regions to adapt is complex.  Wallace-Wells emphasizes the economic capacity of developed nations to create infrastructure that modifies climate effects,  giving them an advantage. "wealth will enable many places to adapt."  And most developed nations are already in temperate zones.  But less developed regions have less commitment to high consumption and energy demand lifestyles,  and might be able to accommodate to more modest changes.  And the evidence of current lifestyles suggests that affluent people are less able to adapt their lifestyles.

Some obvious changes include turning away from cars and toward biking and green space, but also public transportation with low carbon methods.  Major reconstruction of buildings will be needed to adjust to environmental change.  This is both a dramatic expense and a giant infusion of capital into the economy.  How it is paid for (charging the present or future generations) is unknown.

The differential impact on temperate and equitorial regions is inherent in world geography, but how different regions manage change is not.  And the costs of adaptation may remain local or be more globally distributed. Statements like "the continent (Africa) is already losing up to 15 percent of its economic growth because of climate change" should be viewed with caution as they are based on current economic systems,  and do not account for changes.

The changes to the ocean, including coral reefs,  will be dramatic,  but here too the question is relocation of species as much as loss of species.  The greater risk of overfishing, and other human activities,  should be addressed as part of the danger to the oceans.

The rise of sea level, (and how fast) has varied predictions.  The I.P.C.C. has given a median projection of just 47 centimeters, though other estimates are several multiples of that. And scientists worry about “tipping points” — that just two degrees of warming might trigger a feedback loop in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets that can’t be reversed.  But these are worries not observations. "Greenland alone contains enough ice to raise sea levels by more than 20 feet; the Antarctic, considerably more. But little of that melt would come this century."  The emphasis on sea level rise is the result of the concentration of urban centers of population along coasts,  which will continue but shift inland with the rise.  These changes will have dramatic infrastructure expenses,  again with unknown methods of payment,  but they are issues of population movement and engineering, at relatively slow speed, and could be easily accommodated if individuals respond.

The issue of food is an example of not just climate but economic inequality.  Different regions of the world already have very different capacity for food production,  and people continue to live and reproduce in regions with poor and diminishing capacity.  Sending food supplies to sustain living in unsustainable places is stupid.  A global effort is needed to facilitate migration to realistic regions of food production, and accept that persons who don't move will not survive.
New agricultural methods are likely to moderate climate change impact,  and reduced consumption of certain foods would also help. Pongamia grows beans similar to soy, producing protein and oil, a company based in Alameda, Calif., has begun to plant it widely for the first time in the United States. But this does not address the unrealistic distribution of humans to limited regions of production.

Much has been made of increasing "Weather disasters". These are both "events" and "news stories".  The occurrence of fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and sustained high temperatures are measurable time limited events.  They only become "disasters" when news media report the effects on humans living in regions that are vulnerable to them.  Here too, as in the situation of food, human decisions impact the role of weather and climate, and must be adjusted to accept the changes.  "Weather events that impact humans" only increase if humans continue to stay in places where they occur, thinking they can overcome Nature.   “return time,” the period between catastrophes like hurricanes and heat waves should be understood as human decisions,  not definable weather events.  The events do become more frequent as in heat waves,  or the Australian fires,  mega-storms, and severe hurricanes, but infrastructure changes and human relocation can deal with the impact of most of them.

Wallace-Wells gives special attention to the need to alter electric power generation to replace fossil fuels.  No one seems to consider the possibility that usage of electric power might change.  It helps to realize that the US was not completely wired for electricity until after WWII, that people lived by limited light sources and the sun until then,  and still do in some regions.  That the surge toward "electric cars" and transportation increases the power demand,  while decreasing the transportation load of carbon fuels, and the overall impact is not known.  Human based transportation power is only realistic if the distances are smaller,  i.e. residential/commercial relationships are closer.  This can be facilitated by internet communication,  and work-from-home activities,  especially if servers and other electronic infrastructure becomes less energy intensive.  (Bitcoin mining shows that some solutions generate more problems.)   The emphasis is on finding ways to reduce consumption of electric power and especially avoid using electric power to offset the increased heat of climate,  by construction and other techniques.  No one seems to realize that the dependence on increased use of electric power is not inevitable,  and meaningful lifestyles can occur with reductions.

It is in this framework that the goals to increase production of renewable energy sources should be viewed.  One can envision "zero balance energy accounting":  the amount of energy received on earth from the sun and gravitational forces is utilized by various techniques to provide the energy needs of the population, with minimal use of nuclear, or fossil fuel sources in special situations.  This is a fantasy,  but it illustrates the need to consider both sides of the equation:

energy demand  =  energy sources

The importance of emphasizing energy sources that do not depend on fossil fuels is not disputed.  Fossil fuels created a convenient transitional method for accessing more energy for development,  and will remain important for certain tasks.  But at the same time,  an overall strategy for reduced use of energy is needed.  Is being awake after the sun goes down an important contribution to human life and productivity?  The failure to consider lifestyle adjustment is typical of a society driven to excess.

Events like deforestation of the Amazon, melting of carbon-rich permafrost in the northern latitudes and the instability of the ice sheets might represent accelerated effects on change and must not be ignored (but are not controllable by known human interventions).   But his conclusion is balanced: "A lot, then, depends on perspective: The climate future looks darker than today but brighter than many expected not that long ago. The world is moving faster to decarbonize than it once seemed responsible to imagine, and yet not nearly fast enough to avert real turbulence. Even the straightest path to two degrees looks tumultuous, with disruptions from the natural world sufficient to call into question many of the social and political continuities that have been taken for granted for generations. "

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/26/magazine/visualization-climate-change-future.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/26/magazine/climate-change-warming-world.html

NEUROMIND: A CONTEMPORARY APPROACH TO MENTAL HEALTH

 I have published a book about the brain and mental health.  It is available on Amazon and Outskirts Press with the above title.  The following chapter insights give some feeling for what is included and whether the reader will be interested:

Chapter one: The brain is a biological information processing system, sending messages from region to region over defined pathways which produce, among other actions, social adaptation.

 

Chapter two: Many regions of the brain participate in social interaction, but areas containing “mirror neurons” are particularly important for mimicry and the ability to differentiate self and other.  Emotions are messages created by the social brain for group communication.

 

Chapter three: The interactions between body and brain occur in the tegmental-hypothalamic region, which regulates bodily functions,  and coordinates them with external social demands.  The interactions are often difficult to define, as in post partum syndrome.

 

Chapter four: The significance, linking sensory data with rewards, is stored in the Papez pathway through hippocampus.  Disturbances by various etiologies produce the “schizophrenias”. 

 

Chapter five: The “locking-on” process of sustained attention uses “working memory” to experience subjective awareness  (also called  consciousness)

to focus brain activities.  Psychosis occurs when focus is disturbed, and meditation and hypnosis are methods that use the process for repair.

 

Chapter six: The executive choice system includes both attention processes in chapter five and the prefrontal regions, where multiple pathways converge to select behaviors.  The “choice” of behavior is transmitted through basal ganglia nuclei that have previously learned and stored sequences to be activated.

 

Personality is the pattern of learned social interactions,  (the analogy to posture in response to gravity),  stored in basal ganglia pathways,  which may be altered by experience. 

 

Chapter seven: The two primary social learning experiences are primary attachment  and sexuality.  Detailed studies of attachment have been performed and related to borderline syndrome.  The factors regulating the patterns of sexual identity and behavior have been poorly researched, and are not understood.

 

Chapter eight:  The response to danger is organized over pathways from amygdala to other brain regions, similar to the hippocampal papez circuit.  The five aspects of amygdala response can be related to five clinical patterns seen in anxiety disorders, including PTSD.  Aggression also originates in amygdala but its control is poorly understood.

 

 

 

Chapter nine: Addiction is the “hijacking” of the motivation system by non survival motivation.  This was traditionally focused on chemical substances, but other behaviors may also result in maladaptive motivation.  Multiple factors contribute to the vulnerability.

 

Chapter ten: The revised diagnostic system is based on the function of the pathways responsible for adaptive behavior,  and the disturbances, called etiologies, that alter them, including social factors.  Illness is measured by the severity of impaired adaptation, not the presence of symptoms.  Adaptation is bidirectional both superior and impaired adaptation.

 

Chapter eleven:  Psychopharmacology, the preferred intervention at present,  involves three decisions: Does the medication work (and how?)?  What is the balance of intended and other effects?  When should the medication be discontinued?  There is confusion in dealing with each one.

 

Chapter twelve: Altering pathways by input of information (psychotherapy, etc) involves five factors:  the level of interpersonal interaction, the balance of verbal and non-verbal information,  the channels of communication, the balance of cognitive and emotional focus,  and the extend of control of process (agency) by the client or programmer.  No current system of treatments attempts to balance these in therapist and client, and evaluate the results.

COYOTES, DEER, BEARS, AND HUMANS

 A current story in LA TIMES explores the struggle to deal with the prevalence of coyotes in the city.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-09-20/southern-california-coyotes-population-escalating-war

The many pets which have been eaten by these visitors could all have been protected by not letting them out at night,  so it is hard to see how this is simply an issue of the coyotes.  An occasional child may also be at risk, but then a child walking at night without an adult should either understand the risk, or is too young to be walking alone.

All over the country, cities struggle with the expanding deer population and their consumption of ornamental plantings.  There are plants that deer will not eat,  and there are fences deer cannot cross,  but humans tend to see the issue as a deer problem,  rather than the interaction of humans and deer.

In mountain communities all over the country,  bears are sometime visitors to town garbage sites,  and occasionally to home swimming pools and other human habitations.  Bears see the encroachment of human dwellings as a possible new source of food,  and do not distinguish between natural and artificial watering holes (at least until they try to drink the water).

(And by the way, our house,  and many others are occasionally visited by raccoons looking for food supplies.)

All these stories address the human confusion about the relationship between humans (us) and other animals living in the same space. THIS IS NOT A NEW PROBLEM!!  Humans have always shared the land with other animals!!  As local regions became densely urban, the animal population changed from large mammals, to cockroaches, other insects,  birds,  and rats (small mammals).  People attempt to isolate these smaller pests from their interior spaces by construction, and other methods,  and the illusion that there is a zone of humans and a zone of non-human life is created.  As humans move out into suburbs, and ex-urbs, the interaction with larger mammals returns, the humans are surprised that this occurs,  and write newspaper stories about it.  No one seems to notice that the humans moved into the animal spaces,  not the other way around.

To make the story even more peculiar,  animals like mountain lions in the Santa Monica mountains are now rare and forage across highways to find food and are sometimes killed by cars.  So the region is building an animal crosswalk over the highway to allow them to safely cross!!  This will give them access to more mountain regions,  and also wealthy neighborhoods where they have been tracked visiting on monitors.

Some animals are pests because they intrude into our lives and some are precious and need protection (even though they are more dangerous to humans).  The simple message is that humans have lost the understanding of how to live with other species,  how to set boundaries,  and how the boundaries change when living in different habitats.  Though it is often presented in this way,  it is not a problem of animals (except that human activities have eliminated some of their predators).  It is a problem of humans who became so "urbanized" that we lost the knowledge of how to manage our boundaries with animals.  

Robert Frost: Good fences make good neighbors.  Also applies here.

WHITE FRAGILITY

The book WHITE FRAGILITY describes the response of many Caucasian (from now on WHITE) Americans when accused of being racist.  The book describes a syndrome of denial and rejection in individuals who consider themselves to be "liberal minded" and support the rights of minorities.  Published in 2020,  the author has been lecturing and training on this topic for several years with organizations seeking to improve their relationships with minorities.  She is professor in social work at the U of Washington. (https://www.robindiangelo.com/about-me/).  

The book is troubling to many WHITE readers who perceive themselves to be supportive of minorities, particularly toward African-Americans (AA), and their denial becomes the symptom of the problem, at least according to diAngelo.  The book poses an interesting dichotomy: Racists are people who are prejudiced against AA and readily state this, sometimes indirectly (they are inferior, and therefore don't deserve, etc..). Deniers ("fragile whites") are WHITE people who claim to be unprejudiced because they don't perceive their own biases.  And then perhaps there is a third group of positive-prejudiced (PP) who recognize they are prejudiced and try to avoid being unfair.  They are distinguished from racists who use their prejudice to justify hostile acts against AA,  but it is not entirely clear how they are distinguished from deniers.  If a denier admits to some feelings of prejudice do they cease being a denier?  If a PP makes a decision that does not favor an AA, is that evidence that they are not a full PP?  And who makes these decisions?  

DiAngelo gives workshops and trainings which claim to help WHITE people who are "white fragility" PP to recognize themselves and begin to adjust their perceptions.  But what if they disagree?  Are they wrong or is diAngelo?  Who decides?  It seems that her contention is that all WHITES have "white fragility" and there are really no PP,  so the answer is simple. But is it?  Is that so?  According to....?

Regardless of her thesis, and whether it has any validity (in what sense?),  the book raises a valuable question about the difficulties in considering minorities within a society.  Those who remember the 1960s Civil Rights Era will recall that President Kennedy was reluctantly pressing the Southern States to integrate their schools,  while his home city of Boston had almost total segregation, not by law but by geographic district boundaries.  Southern Governors were certainly acknowledged Racists, but Kennedy and his initiative reflected his PP that southern schools were segregated,  but not Boston's.  There are many other examples one might cite, which continue to the present.

The  labor necessary to develop the United States,  including construction of major buildings and the capitol in DC, farming plantations in the Southern US,  and construction of the railroads, and agricultural development and mining in the West--- all depended on slave labor, or very poorly compensated, near slave labor.  One group of persons exploited another group using them to perform arduous labor. (If anyone contests this, they are none of the above categories,  just uninformed.)  The question is whether this exploitation is justified by the inferiority of the group (Racist), or it happened and was unfortunate, but I didn't do it, PP, or it happened,  somebody's ancestors did it, and it is unclear how to "accommodate" it in the present.  Perhaps the stupidest response is tearing down monuments.  The monuments of exploitation, both the Civil War monuments,  and the golden spike of Promontory Point,  are the evidence of the past, and tearing them down only obscures the reality and allows future generations to deny it.  Monuments of exploitation should be modified to acknowledge the full historical significance.  (The great honor of the golden spike at Promontory Point joining the two railroad constructions and linking the country did not mention the horrible conditions and danger of Chinese laborers from the West, or the blacks, both free and slave, who worked from the East ("John Henry he could hammer..."). 

The broader question is the issue of rewriting the national history.  At no time in my education,  was I taught that slaves played a role in my home state of Penna.  Nor was I told of the complex role of Native Americans  trying to play off the British and French to protect their homelands.  My college history (the little I studied) was Euro-centric, and never mentioned that there were ancient civilizations in Mexico and the Western US because their evidence was archeology,  not written texts.  Interesting.

The United States in which we live is a far more complex cultural soup than any of our current educational formulations.  A thorough multicultural history of the US does not exist.  The great interest Liberals showed in Lepore's THESE TRUTHS is entirely based on her formulation of the factors producing the current unrest in the country; the book never mentions the Spanish mission history, the role of Chinese Labor in building the railroad and other labor from the West, or the complex economic and political history of the settlement of the West.  The oil industry gets one reference related to the Nixon campaign!  The 792 text pages are an obsessional view of the importance of Washington, DC and the people in it,  the documents it produced over time,  and the well known historical events that have left a scar in the culture.  The other events and complex history, most of it outside of DC,  are never mentioned.  Her long analysis of FDR and the importance of his use of radio, does not mention the Golden Gate Bridge, or Hoover Dam, two of the great accomplishments that have changed the West and the country.  A historian who writes a history of documents, and an interpretation of how they influence the country should be evaluated as such, not credited with a broad analysis of the factors that influence the country.

The conflicts going on the schools reflect this confusion.  What history of the US should children learn?  The history of Ohio?  Of Mississippi?  Should every school teach important details of the history of each state?  Who decides the important details?  Where was all the Liberal outrage about the poor quality of education about AA in the 1990s?  How has it suddenly been discovered?  Which other minorities are launching similar campaigns to get their history and role in the country appreciated?  (How many people know the history behind John Ford's movie "The Searchers"? Read "Empire of the Summer Moon").

The point is that every political entity tries to formulate a "consensus consciousness" (Tart) about the people, places, and events that are the unifying features of the culture. (Monarchs are useful tools, as illustrated by the recent death of the queen.)  This consensus is breaking down in the US today,  and a different consensus will be formed probably using social media and other new forms of communication.  (It won't come by radio, despite the influence of certain radio personalities.)

The stupid thing about "White Fragility" is its attempt to reformulate one narrow perspective of a certain group without considering the broader context in which it occurs.  The positive aspect of "White Fragility" is that it points out that everyone, in every group, has perspectives influenced by their group experience,  and forming an integrative "country story" will be a long and complex process.  No one group is entitled to be the scribe of the "actual" history of the US, though this seemed to be the case for more than a century.

GETTING "BACK TO NATURE"

I have  been on an "intellectual journey" which I cannot recommend.  I am blogging it here, in case anyone is interested.

When we moved to California, one of the attractions was the proximity of many  beautiful natural landscapes.  I had visited  before and seen a few sights,  which,  along with Sierra Club photo books, only whetted my appetite.  After settling in, we visited many of the places,  enjoyed the views, and I was stimulated to understand more about what I was seeing.

This led to an effort to become an amateur "naturalist".  I read about the geology examples of dramatic local scenery.  I read about, and went to observe, the Fault, and its cousins,  as well as feeling their grunts from time to time.

I tried to get familiar with, and identify, the odd local plants I had never seen in the East,  (some of which were not native, after all),  animals that chose to show themselves, on land and water, and a profusion of birds,   especially shore birds.  There are few places in the US or world,  where you can drive less than two hours to the ocean, the desert, and mountains 8-12000 feet.  For a neophyte naturalist it is truly overwhelming,  but fun.

 Soon I was learning that trees are not "things" but complex communities in which the members communicate and interact.  And there are even unitary communities, like the aspens' "Pando".

And I read books by naturalists like Childs, who gave a dramatic description of going through the local desert, and the effects of water and its absence.  He also wrote about the native people who inhabited and survived in these locations long before John Muir and other Europeans were extolling their beauty.  (Once in Bryce looking at the formations,  another tourist, struck with the beauty, said "I wonder who was the first person to discover this place." To which I answered, "It wasn't a white person.")

You cannot be overwhelmed by the beauty for long before you notice that there are a lot of other people at many of these lovely places.  And you notice that some of the areas around the parks are relatively natural forests, or desert lands,  but  human development is encroaching  everywhere. 

So, of course,  I began to think about how humans are altering the climate,  creating extinctions,  causing the dolphins to come onshore to die---the whole anthropocene mess-- surveyed by Kolbert.  Her book is sensationalist which fits with its mission of advocacy,  but it is also disconnected and seems to lack a core.

This led me to a "real biologist's view" Dunn's NATURAL HISTORY OF THE FUTURE.  (In case you are wondering, I have not written this blog to encourage anyone to read these books.)  Dunn surveys many examples of natural and urban organisms who are "evolving" in dramatic ways,  often only observable in complex studies.  There are "islands" of rats in urban parks,  and the collapse of bee colonies,  and many other examples (not all of them depressing).

When I step back to look at my journey,  I realize that the natural beauty of these places in our world has not gone away,  but my vision of them has changed.  My mind imagines the intricate interdependence of species  and environment (even when I can't see them, or understand the processes).  How easy it is to alter and disrupt the relationships, with the good intention of growing more food,  or eradicating malaria, or some other human  outcome. 

I see the beauty but I also see and feel the ways in which that world and my world are not connected.  And I wonder what to do about it,  and doubt that it is simply about protesting, or driving an electric vehicle.  

If we end up in Mad Max's world,  it will eventually be taken over by insects and microbes.  

But Bryce will still be there with its beautiful formations.

WHAT IS SCHOOL FOR?

 Covid has interrupted a year or more of  the continuity of education withe unknown consequences for the children affected,  but it helps them  appreciate the importance of engaging in school;  an appreciation that is difficult to convey in any other way. Perhaps the major benefit of the Covid epidemic is recognizing that American schools are not appreciated or supported.  

Today's NYT  (9/4/22) has a special section on schools (https://www.nytimes.com/section/todayspaper#sundayreview).  Contributors ask is school for: "everyone",  "social mobility", "learning to read",  "care", "us" (minorities),  "merit", "wasting time and money", "making citizens",  "hope", "connecting to Nature", "becoming school activists", and 12 teachers comment on the situation of public schools.  A simple answer is that schools are the institution of a complex society to prepare the younger members to take on the adult roles of the society.  This answer fits with all societies, large and small,  a necessary social function of every community. A problem with this answer is that not all children engage with school in the same way, or receive the same benefits,  and so schools prioritize what they provide to students with inconsistent results.   The many purposes of school that the writers identify are all included in the education of private funded schools,  so it seems clear that the question of priorities is not about what schools should do,  but what schools should be paid to do, and who should pay?  

The simple answer,  like private schools,  is that the local community should agree on what to pay for their schools, and what to provide in services and instruction.  Property taxes and school boards seem to answer this problem until it becomes clear that many services can only be provided effectively in large school populations,  and so "unified school districts" extend over large regions and conflicting interests impact school boards.  This should solve the problem of size and scale but it doesn't.  People complain about the cost of schools and blame teacher's salaries (and their unions) and the lack of adequate teachers,  but the bottom line is really money and exclusion.  Despite efforts to integrate and balance districts with different economic groups,  school districts still are separated by their included population, and parents intentionally move to areas and districts with "a better class of people" and "better schools".  This is a racial and social class issue,  but it is really a money issue: people do not want to dilute their school taxes to include people who pay less for their schooling.  This issue has never been effectively solved anywhere in the country.

But even better funded school systems are having trouble affording a wide range of educational services.  The disappearance of arts,  music, and other "special programs" indicates that in order to prioritize the "three Rs" other educational components must be sacrificed.  Though teachers get the blame,  it is hard to imagine that this low paid group is really the problem.  

The deeper problem is capitalism and "human resources".  Any society that is solely motivated by the accumulation of capital and the ROI (return on investment) of capital,  will see "human resources" not as a separate source of value but as a component in the process of ROI.  This is obvious to anyone who has ever worked in a large corporate setting, but is often unappreciated by the general public.  For the average homeowner,  the tax that pays for schools is a cost of ownership with no direct ROI.  Yes, it helps property values,  but these are varying and unpredictable and cannot compensate for the accumulated loss in taxes.  Does anyone ever say: "I want to pay more school taxes to improve the quality of public education in my region."? If they have,  I have not found any record of it.

The most ludicrous intervention is Federal Education policies.  The idea that a small group of bureaucrats in Washington DC can intuit how to distribute income tax money  to differentially benefit multiple school systems is ridiculous.  The assumption that Federal Education policies insure a general level of quality education is a laudable ideal with no evidence that it has ever been accomplished.  Placing deVos as the head of Education in the last administration is a clear indication that at least some people see this as merely an opportunity for facilitating private investment.

What is School For?  is part of a greater issue in contemporary society: What are children for?  It appears that the major role of children and teens is to become socialized to consume goods and services that drive the economy, to train them to become aggressive consumers by having them watch as much advertising as possible,  and buying, or motivate their parents to buy, as much disposable product,  including media,  as possible.  The tasks of preparing children to become leaders,  scientists,  spiritual guides,  and most important,  effective parents,  are secondary.  This is also how youth are exploited in for profit education programs that pretend to provide alternative education opportunities,  but are empty promises.  (Not all, but most are.)

Recent US history exemplifies leaders whose major priority is enriching themselves,  and this is also characteristic of many of the wealthiest in our country who care more about putting their money into super-yachts and grand estates,  and not  returning wealth to enhance the education of the society, as occurred in earlier generations.  America has succeeded in educating a group of people to believe that the only important value is accumulating more capital.  I do not think this is a long term basis for any society.  

CRISPR EDITING AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

 Today's NYT has a brief interview with the woman who discovered (developed?) gene editing, for which she was awarded a Nobel prize. (The prize named for the discoverer of dynamite.)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/15/magazine/jennifer-doudna-crispr-interview.html?smid=url-share

Dr Doudna is aware of the potential dangers of the technology,  but suggests in the interview that a gradual process of exploration will lead to useful modifications of the genome in plants, animals, and humans.  She gives an example of a CRISPR tomato about to  be approved in Japan,  while ignoring the already intense controversy over GMO by more ordinary techniques.  Her views on the potential benefits for food production must be weighed against the trend in for profit companies to manufacture GMO designed for profitability and control of use,  as much as for value in production.  And the long term health effects of these products remain unclear because there is no requirement for research funding in the 5+ year range (not to mention the 70+ years of a human life).  She talks about the potential for modifying disease carrying mosquitoes,  and some non-reproducing species are already being released,  but these organisms are part of complex food chains with birds and other animals,  and prioritizing the danger to humans ignores these other ecological consequences.  She suggests the potential benefit for modifying the genes for cardiovascular disease (or cancer?) illustrating the basic problem of medical genetic thinking:  There are no (few?) genes for diseases.  Viewing them in this way is an artifact of medical research.  Evolution selects genes for adaptation,  and multiple genes combine to provide adaptive capacity in a given environment.  The "negative" health consequences are the result of balanced effects that are positive,  and interaction with life behaviors, diet, etc.  "Eliminating" specific genes may give one benefit while creating other major problems,  like the negative muscle effects of statin drugs in many individuals.

Genetic manipulation by intentional human decision has been occurring for thousands of years in selection of plants, and cross breeding,  long before Mendel described the patterns.  As the process becomes a more direct modification of specific loci,  the need to understand the complex effects becomes more urgent.  As the organisms involved have longer lifespans,  the accumulated consequences must be studied and understood.  In the current climate of financially driven research,  this more objective, long term perspective is harder to fund and maintain, with dire consequences.  The problem is not CRISPR,  the problem is that making ROI (return on investment) the basis for genetic evolutionary modifications is not a good idea.

ENVIRONMENT: PARTICIPATING IN THE CHALLENGE

Reality is always distorted by politics,  and the discussion of solutions to the changes in earth's climate are a good example.

The climate is changing.  The overall temperature of the earth is getting warmer,  and rapidly.  This is not happening in a year,  but over decades.  The measurements are statistical but the trend seems clear and dramatic.  

Why is this happening? In the 1970s,  an ozone depletion theory was the proposed answer,  still considered by some  https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/why-warming-stopped/  https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/15/is-the-ozone-hole-causing-climate-change/   This theory has generally been replaced by the proposal that fossil fuel changes in the atmosphere create a "greenhouse effect".    https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/    https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fossil-fuels-dirty-facts    https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports   It is important to understand that this is a theory, an explanation of the changes based on observations, correlations, and assumptions.  Are properties of the earth a factor?  Does climate shift in this way due to variations in solar energy,  or cycles of ice formation,  etc?  Opponents can find indications and data that do not support this theory.  That is inevitable in scientific discovery. 

But this is not just about proving a scientific theory.  The changes in the earth's temperature and related changes in climate are altering the distribution of plants and animals,  the location of arable land suitable for growing food,  and the distribution of water supplies.  These are measurable changes in the earth, whether or not they are the consequence of the use of fossil fuels.  The test of the importance of the role of fossil fuels would be the dramatic reduction in atmospheric changes and an associated change in climate.  This is unlikely to be possible.  Use of fossil fuels is directly related to economic development,  and sustained economic advantage.  It does not appear that any country with significant fossil fuel resources will forego use for the sake of the survival of the earth.  Statements by oil companies, etc.  to the contrary are marketing distractions to confuse consumers.  And it may not work!  The climate changes may have progressed too far,  and cyclical shifts are already occurring.  Or the reversals may occur but be much slower to reset the climate.  Human experience is generational roughly 20-40 years,  and so is political thinking.  So these climate changes are too slow for normal human thought processes.  COMMITTING TO THE  CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERE BASED ON FOSSIL FUEL AND OTHER POLLUTION IS A TRANS-GENERATIONAL COMMITMENT.  This is very difficult to accomplish in political terms.

Instead the focus in reporting and promoting is on natural disasters and animal extinction. Problems in the distribution of food and water have already given rise to migrations toward regions with more opportunity (though not always with regard to future climate issues).  Natural disasters are another source of confusion.  Tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and fires are recurring natural events that may be exaggerated by changes in climate. (The data to assert this is incomplete.)  But the reality is always the same:  When humans build dwellings in regions of high risk for natural disasters the dwellings are damaged or destroyed and the lives are altered.  The location of the disasters is statistically predictable,  yet humans return to the same sites to rebuild despite knowing the damage will return.  The fantasy of owning a piece of the earth interferes with the reality of recurring destruction from natural disasters.  The emphasis on animal extinctions is another example, to be considered in another blog.

Humans have relatively little political or personal control over climate change and natural disasters. By contrast we have a significant ability to manage the pollution of the earth and sea with toxic substances,  avoid living in disaster prone areas, and set aside regions of territory for maintaining some persistence of the previous environmental patterns (i.e. "wilderness" whatever that means).

To participate effectively in the future of the earth,  more thoughtful reflection is needed,  and less poorly thought out, and stupidly motivated political action.  No amount of Tesla production, or other electric vehicle use will offset fossil fuel and the need to generate power to reverse climate change.  It is an example of false marketing of climate change for economic purposes.

ENVIRONMENT: ON THE EXTINCTION OF GRIZZLY BEARS

The earth is in trouble.

There are too many people. 

The earth's population is approaching 8 billion.  And its rate of growth is linear.  There are still many places with very few people,  but the concentration  in giant cities with massive populations is increasing.  Where humans are highly concentrated,  they drive out other life and create changes in the environment which have given rise to the name for the emerging era: anthropocene:  the age of humans.  To address this problem it is necessary to limit the birth rate of the species to some  survivable limit. This is very difficult to accomplish because it involves coordinating across nations  to regulate an activity considered outside the range of legislation in most countries.

It is getting too hot. 

Despite denial by the current American government, most other governments and scientists agree that there is a dramatic warming of the planet.  The evidence for the warming is unequivocal and human activities likely play a significant role in at least accelerating,  if not causing the changes.  The scientific explanation has been that there is increased C02 which allows the heat to stay "trapped" in the atmosphere in a "green house" effect.  Whether this factor or some other astronomical issues are also involved is unknown.  But the evidence is clear that the earth is warming  in the contraction of ice packs in polar regions and changes in ocean water temperature,  and rising average atmospheric temperatures.

The world is becoming toxic and polluted.

This piece in the New Yorker last year describes a so far unsucessful effort

New Yorker: The Widening Gyre to clear-the-great-pacific-garbage-patch

We are running out of drinking water.

The human and animal species depend on non-salinated water for survival,  and this water is not evenly distributed over the earth's surface.  Fresh water depends on rainfall,  snow pack,  location of streams and rivers,  preservation of unpolluted sources,  and a balance between use and replenishment.  All these factors are out of balance in specific regions posing challenges for the human survival in those areas.  Plants also depend on water supply and so crops are lost in the same regions, compromising the food supply.

And animal and plant species are going extinct.

The distinguished biologist E. O. Wilson has written a book about conservation.  His proposal is clear and unachievable:  set aside roughly 50% of the earth as protected,  to be allowed to continue to function without excessive human incursion.  The regions he proposes are ones with some of the highest levels of biodiversity,  and his stated aim is to preserve diversity and present the extensive loss of species through extinction currently in progress.   As a biologist-zoologist,  he has great respect for the genetic store of information in different species and the need to preserve this "information" for future generations.  This includes the genome of plant species as well,  though he gives that less emphasis.  The first 3/4 of the book details the extent to which human development is rapidly depleting regions of the "natural world" and replacing them with human settlements.  These have mostly human genomes,  extinction for most animal species around them,  and has given rise to the term "anthropocene" to describe  the earth's  transformation by human activity.  Why is this happening?  There are two clear reasons:
1) Human reproduction is expanding rapidly,  and human mortality decreasing by various modes,  so the life expectancy is extending,  ergo more people around. 
2) The economic value of extracting natural resources and developing land is clearly defined,  while the economic or other significance of genomic diversity is not.  Economic considerations now dominate all others.

The geologic record suggests that the earth has seen two or three dramatic extinctions of most creatures and out of these new life forms have evolved to populate the remaining earth.  Insects and some plants are especially gifted at survival,  and this suggests that an alternative solution would be to allow the earth to be catastrophically destroyed and repopulated by other species.  This is not likely to be a favorable solution for humans who have a strong attachment to their survival and importance as a species.  Indeed,  one of Wilson's major points is that humans don't know that much about how to live with other species,  apparently because we don't care.  This is less true for "primitive" cultures who did and to some extent do coexist with other species.  But the"developed" world of Eurocentric and American culture is organized around isolation from other creatures and destroying their intrusion into our lives.  Especially insects!

Given the interdependent issues involved,  the issue that gets the most attention is:  Developing Renewable Energy  All human activities require energy,  much of it provided in parts of the world by the energy mechanisms within the body,  food,  and atmospheric oxygen.  But in the increasingly technical world,  the role of energy is to power devices for transportation,  manufacturing,  and communication.

The Real Solution Is  to manage human population growth,  and balance it with the rest of the natural environment.  This requires a major change in the evolutionary view of certain  species.  How to engineer that?

TRUMP AND THE WIZARD OF OZ

Many years ago,  the United States was struck by a great economic catastrophe.  There was no work,  people were hungry and the country was in disarray.  In the middle of this disaster,  a story captured the imagination of the people:  the three characters needed a heart, a brain, and courage,  or something, and followed the yellow brick road to see the wizard who said he would fix them.   In the story,  the characters learn that they have the power they seek within themselves,  and they learn this by recognizing that the wizard of oz is an illusionist:  someone who pretends to have power and control the world,  but who really is just manipulating the scenery of a great stage.

In 2001 the United States was struck by another catastrophe.   And in 2008 a second economic distress.  Many people were out of work, and hungry and angry.  They went seeking help from their leaders to fix the problems.  The leaders attempted to solve the outward problem,  but never fixed the basic one: Americans feel powerless,  controlled by a wizard in a distant city.  It makes no difference that the people choose this wizard every four years.  When Obama was chosen,  it was  his job to solve all the failures of the African American (and other) minority groups.  Of course he could not do that by himself, and did not get much support from congress to help.

Fear and disappointment in those eight years enabled Trump to be elected, barely.   It was his job to fix the  the oil industry's declining fortunes, rebuild the rust belt,  and resolve the conflicts of moral values in the society.  He had no experience in any aspect of government,  and a history of failing in business,   rebuilding his personal finances as they were depleting.   He made many "executive order" proclamations  to address the challenges the country faced,  without benefit except to himself.  Three quarters of the way through his term,  the country was faced with a new catastrophe,  a covid pandemic, more serious potentially than any recent event.  A moment when real leadership is tested.

In the story of Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz,  Dorothy and her companions wander off to find a wizard who will solve their problems.  They encounter many false choices along the way.  In the same way,  Americans have been offered a swamp of fake solutions and fantasy conspiracies intended to explain our problems and why one group of leaders or another cannot be trusted.   People seek solutions everywhere when they feel helpless and inadequate to solve the problems together.  This is why dictatorships follow economic deterioration and social crises.  Someone,  in this case Trump, is happy to come forward and promise he will fix everything, for everyone, well almost everyone,  not those who are causing the problem.  And there must always be a group to blame.

The message of the book and movie is that the wizard's power is an illusion.  The wizard uses the machinery of public relations and propaganda,  by radio, television, and now internet to gather support and take control.  The wizard of oz is able to control when the people believe that he alone will solve their problems, they must give themselves up to him, and then everything will be all right.  But the more convincing and sophisticated the wizard is, and the more desperate the people,  the more likely that he will fail.  The wizard is the power of one person,  limited by the structure of government,  and the broader limitations of society.  His power comes from the belief in his rescue, a passive inability to solve the problems they are facing.  The real power is in the people, so, for the wizard to succeed,  the people must recognize that he is a sham,  and they must find their own solution.  The current president has all the qualifications to be a successful wizard by failing in his leadership,  and needs no attacks from the Liberal establishment for this.   His failure is the potential success of Americans to recognize their own power to solve the problems they are facing.  At this point,   those who don't want to solve problems, but be rescued, must get out of the way. 

Each  individual  must find the missing part he or she seeks from leaders by looking within.  Liberals are convinced that their intelligence  insures the ability to solve the problems,  but are missing a heart,  an ability to empathize with the other side and understand their human struggles.  The extreme right fears the dangers around them, they are afraid, and seek the courage to face their fears in leaders, not themselves.   The middle of the political spectrum needs more thinking about the problems to be solved, and each person's role in solving them,  to assert their commitment to a balanced inclusive democratic process that does not gerrymander,  exclude,  or otherwise manipulate the electorate.  They must find the courage to stand up to both extremes.  The more activated and engaged the electorate becomes,  the better chance we have to end the OZ problem.  But it is not just a matter of being active:  each must rediscover the missing part  in order to engage in meaningful dialog with the others.

EVOLUTION AND SPIRITUALITY

 Someone wondered on FB whether evolution "exists".  Evolution is not a thing. Although it happens, or seems to, it is not an event.  "Evolution" is a way of explaining the relationships between living organisms.  Evolution says that living organisms have common characteristics because they originated in common previous organisms.  Evolution also says that modern organisms differ and have varied characteristics because they evolved to occupy different opportunities in the environment.  And these characteristics changed as the environment changed.  Evolution is a statement about the relationship of living things over time and space.  Though many of the characteristics of the relationship can be readily observed today, as Darwin described in the 19th century,  they cannot be proven in any simple way.  The current relationship between current  and future organisms is controlled by genetic processes,  which can be observed,  manipulated to produce new organisms,  and complex statistical formulas (Fisher's equation) exist to predict how populations of organisms modify over time.

Evolutionary theory is based on the assumption that genetic variation guides the development of new organisms,  and improved adaptation selects some and discards the others (who die without reproducing).  Dunbar proposed the "social brain hypothesis" to suggest that the ability to function in social groups is an evolutionary trait,  which is determined by specific features of the brains of social organisms.  This is one of several hypotheses about how selection influences the brain.  All of them depend on genetic variation and environmental selection.  Knowledge, experience, or culture cannot play a role in this theory of evolution because none of these change the  organism's genes.  

This is troubling and puzzling.  If all of human culture plays no role in evolution,  why do humans maintain a strong effort to preserve it?  Evolutionary biologists have begun developing an extension of the theory,  Dual Inheritance Theory, to include cultural aspects of evolution.  In this concept of the process,  genetic and cultural factors combine to modify the future characteristics of humans.  How does this happen?

The brain is the place where genes and culture interact.  Although most animals' behaviors are readily predicted by genetic features,  this weakens as learning becomes more important in the species.  With the expansion of the human cerebral cortex,  learning and experience expands to strongly regulate and overpower instinctual responses.   This is variable in humans,  and instinctual behaviors are observed more often at some times than others.  The ability to overcome impulses to reproduction (sexuality),  or decreased food consumption,  or kill other humans while not being threatened by them, are all examples of non-instinctual behavior (often incorrectly assumed to be "animal").  The human brain is capable of over-riding patterns of instinctual behavior, but it is unclear when this process promotes evolution and when it interferes.  This is not a theoretical issue!

Human reproduction overpowers the capacity of regions to support the number of persons born.  Human consumption produces pollution that interferes with the capacity to live in the environment.  Human activities may be altering the climate of the planet,  making it inhabitable.  These are all failures to respond to the natural evolutionary controls of populations. Is there anything to do about this?

There is an alternative process which uses the cognitive capacities of the human brain to address life problems.  Recognizing problems and attempting to solve them is a human capacity partly evolutionary, and partly cultural.  Some problems are complex and extend over longer time intervals, making them difficult to solve in simple terms.  The ability to be aware of the broader impact of human actions and its relationship to the natural world requires a special awareness.  We call that awareness spirituality, or spiritual insight.  It is a way of understanding life as a total situation,  not compartmentalized into specific elements.  It is what Buddhism calls interdependent origination.   

Throughout history humans have faced challenges to survival not readily solved by the slower evolutionary processes,  and utilized spiritual awareness to solve them.  Persons skilled at this are leaders,  the originators of religions,  which codify the solutions,  and maintain them,  even when circumstances change and the solutions are no longer applicable.  Some religions are better than others at modifying to adapt to change,  but all religions represent previous solutions to challenges,  which are not likely to address current or future challenges.  There is no eternal truth.  There is only the solution to survival of the challenge in the current moment.  There is only the evolutionary tao to discern and follow.