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.