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?