FIXING THE INTERNET: An overview of choices

The internet is a digital system of communication which now links most of the people on earth through satellite and other transmission to computers, tablets, and digital phones.  The changes to human interactions and the impact on communities and the political system are just beginning to be appreciated.  This series "Fixing the Internet" is intended to describe several aspects which would benefit from more careful consideration by users.  No recommendations are made to the companies that supply the network, the companies and provide individual access, or specific companies providing internet services.  There are literally millions of recommendations by viewers, journalists, and advisors to these organizations,  which so far have had negligible effect.  Instead, this series of blogs is aimed at helping the user be more educated and mindful about the process of interaction with the internet in order to make better personal choices.  One sometimes gets the impression that the interaction is completely controlled by the providers,  but this is incorrect,  the result of failure to understand the process of interaction.  Different blogs will focus on separate areas:

#1 OWNERSHIP:  Who owns the data, sender or receiver?  Or the transmission service?

#2 PRIVACY AND SECURITY  How to ensure that the message is only received by the intended receivers? How to maintain privacy or disregard it for economic benefits?

#3 EVALUATING DATA CONTENT: Is the data true?  Is it legal?  Can it be used to make decisions?  How is it biased?

#4 CAN YOU MAKE MONEY FROM THE INTERNET? Can others steal from you over the internet?  How to prevent this?

#5 THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL IMPACT: What social and political effects does this communication provide and should it be politically regulated?

#6 PARTICIPATION:  How does the individual decide whether to use/participate in some aspects, most aspects, or totally reject participation?

Subsequent posts will address aspects of each of these topics.   Each blog will focus on some aspect of the basic issues. The topic is open ended and ongoing with the changes in the internet.  AI is an example of a recent  consideration which is not restricted to the internet but will impact its influence and services in dramatic ways.

FIXING THE INTERNET 3: ELON MUSK AND DISINFORMATION

A review of several books related to the internet by Jennifer Szalai provides an opportunity to focus on the topic of valid information. 

 ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/31/books/review/elon-musk-trust-misinformation-disinformation.html )

Elon Musk's struggle with Twitter (now X) provides a useful guide.  There are many speculations about why he chose to buy Twitter and refashion it.  But his claim to make it more accurate seems undercut by the first changes he made to stop putting so many resources into maintaining the trust, including charging for blue check verification,  suing an organization that tracks hate speech and falsehoods on social media , rejecting legislators’ calls for transparency, and now charging researchers up to $42,000 a month for access to data-gathering tools that once were free.  By reveling in the chaos, Musk has turned X into an experiment in whether “the best source of truth” means anything.   If we take him at his word that he was trying to make X more valid, then it is not clear that he succeeded.  But then some of Space X rockets blow up,  Tesla autopilots drive into trees; engineering is an imperfect skill that deals with imperfect information.  Musk’s vision for an information free-for-all on X  makes the goal seem impossible to  achieve — and the enormous challenges of any workable fix plain to see.   ( https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/what-we-lost-when-twitter-became-x  )

(We do well to dispatch the character attacks on Musk, his erratic moods, his alleged ketamine, and other drug use.  These may have relevance for his responsibility to his workers and investors, but it is hard to see how this can be used to explain his failures at X.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2024/01/07/elon-musk-claims-not-even-trace-amounts-of-drugs-in-his-system-after-report-detailed-drug-concerns-from-tesla-spacex-execs/    https://fortune.com/2024/01/07/elon-musk-drug-use-worries-tesla-spacex-leaders-report/    https://nypost.com/2024/01/07/news/elon-musks-drug-use-has-executives-at-his-companies-concerned-report/  )

Szalai provides a distinction between “Misinformation” (= false information that people sincerely believe and unwittingly spread) and “disinformation,” (=  (what the Soviets called dezinformatsiya) deliberate goal oriented deception).  This seemingly clear distinction is quickly confused when persons disseminate "disinformation" without realizing that they are doing so.   “On Disinformation: How to Fight for Truth and Protect Democracy,”  Lee McIntyre,  writes about “truth killers”  “to spread disinformation out to the masses — in order to foment doubt, division and distrust — and create an army of deniers.”   The originators of the disinformation may be lost in the masses of misinformation!  McIntyre claims the information about vaccination was competing against a "fire hose of falsehoods" on social media and the internet.  Can "real truth" be washed out by large numbers of lies?

 Thomas Rid explains, in “Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare” (2020), that Russian disinformation is nothing new;  Russian trolls placed thousands of ads on Facebook — but none of the most popular contained what Rid, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins, calls “sharp, corrosive disinformation.” Rid claims the internet has actually made such campaigns “harder to control, and harder to isolate engineered effects.” Isn't there a long history of mis- and disinformation, including much sent by the US to other countries?  Was Radio Free Europe "true"?  Or propaganda?  This is precisely the kind of argument that Jeff Kosseff presents in “Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation” (2023).  Kosseff, a professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy, urges caution. He doesn’t deny that technology can amplify lies, and that lies — whether deliberately engineered or not — can be dangerous. Does it make sense to give government the power to decide on the "truth" of information?  Doesn't that amount to the sort of mind control in 1984?

Despite the liberal/libertarian claims of Silicon Valley, companies like Meta, which makes billions from advertisers,  have a vested interest in promoting the idea of an impressionable public susceptible to being influenced on platforms that are “magically persuasive” to sell advertisers. Most people would agree that the level of "truth" in advertising is extremely low, to non-existent.

Who is in charge of "truth" anyway?  In a cover story for Harper’s Magazine in 2021, the BuzzFeed reporter Joseph Bernstein (now a reporter for The Times) wrote about what he calls “Big Disinfo”: an industrial complex of think tanks, media companies and academic centers that emerged during the Trump years to study the effects of disinformation.  The RAND CORP has published the results of a study on the erosion of truth in society which they call TRUTH DECAY.  (https://www.rand.org/research/projects/truth-decay.html)(It is available for download free at ( https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2314.html )
 They identify this as the declining use of “data and facts” in political discussions over the last decade.  They recognize this has been a feature in US society historically, "yellow journalism", etc. They see four trends:
    disagreement about facts and their interpretation
,  blurring of the line between opinion and fact
,  increasing the role of opinion,
 and decline in trust of "respected sources".  They identify four drivers:
  cognitive bias as a human characteristic
, changes in information systems in news media,  changes in internet social media
,  breakdown of the education system,
  and polarization of society,  politically and economically.  Data supporting these observations is generally strong, and social media is only one of several factors.  They assert a need for agreed upon “truth” for every society,  and  that making decisions for the society based on these “truths” is the best course of action.
  In this view,  the problem is not the breakdown of valid communication of information,  but the intentional biasing of information for advocacy. 

TO PROCEED it is useful to be clear about three different kinds of truth:  1) Certain beliefs common to religious groups and certain social communities are accepted as true statements, without any independent validation.  "The bible says it's so."  2) Peirce's pragmatic truth “Inquiry properly carried on will reach some definite and fixed result or approximate indefinitely toward that limit” (1.485)1 and, “The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth” (5.407).  This closely approximates what scientific knowledge would provide if it were not distorted by other social values. and 3) Consensus reality the common group of beliefs held by a community based on varying levels of observation and reinforced by social consensus. (As in the Ash experiments in social psychology.) (Tart has written the strongest descriptions of the power of social consensus.)  If there are other ways of validated "truth" (outside of mathematical logic),  I am not aware of them. 

 The range of "truth" is relatively narrow.  Facts that I observe as an individual based on my sensory experience are the basic level of “truth”.  Even at this level the information is imprecise.  I may overlook important details,  or see an event occurring and misinterpret it,  as in observing a traffic accident.  Once the process of observation becomes complicated by scientific instrumentation,  various procedures of standardization (calibration) must be done.  And if the information is reported by another, either verbally, or using audio-visual media, the bias that person introduces must be considered.  Even a simple report like “it is hot today” may involve bias,  not to speak of complex reports like “voter fraud is everywhere”.   “Scientifically” performed observations can easily be biased if the method of observation or reporting is biased.  This supports the postmodern view that most information is biased by the source and must be interpreted,  so that “truth” is relative.  “Fact checking” politicians amounts to identifying if they make statements of advocacy pretending that they are based on “real events” or “data”.  They are not bound to make true statements “under oath” most of the time, so it is unclear why people expect them to do so.  The current Liberal attacks on the POTUS for his constant, patently false statements simply reaffirm his intention to annoy them and support his followers.  The idea that the Clinton presidency was mostly truthful is equally inaccurate, and the failure of Liberals to acknowledge this confuses their current outrage.


Based on these versions of truth, the Rand concept of "Truth Decay" is not about disagreement of facts,  but about the breakdown in a consensus of how agreement is reached by the society.  There is a common liberal/conservative confusion about communication:  liberals  believe that transmitting "accurate data" will drive optimal decisions,  while conservatives believe that emotional bias drives decisions regardless of data and emphasize emotional communication, an apparent conflict between data and consensus. Increasingly, the liberal position has lost its data focus. (The reader will recall that RAND at one time produced studies on the magnitude of overkill needed to prevent a nuclear war, not "fact based"!) The social system creates its own reality and enjoys or endures the consequences.  This is more obvious in economic decisions,  but applies in all social decisions.  TRUTH DECAY is an attempt to “explain” how the conservative approach to communication is “overwhelming” and eroding "truth".  But “big data” continues to be utilized by businesses for decision making.  The supposed disregard of facts is mainly in the arena of politics and social policy, and a strong division of values in current US society is driving this advocacy messaging.    

A clearer understanding is the breakdown of social consensus in the country over the last half century, the result of 1) economic inequality, 2) failure to protect workers as a class, and 3) scapegoating of minorities as a method of avoiding the effective decision making of leadership, which intensifies social silos.   Chris Hayes book “Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy,” published in 2012 describes how elite malfeasance: the forever wars after 9/11, the 2008 financial crisis undermined the public’s trust in institutions.  The election of Obama further challenged the country's sense of consensus (whether or not he was an effective leader).

The role of the internet social media is a multiplier.  It expands access to varying opinions, and if these are used according to criterion 2) will eventually lead to valid decisions.  But more often,  the result is the creation of consensus subgroups 3) with conflicting opinions on major issues.   "truth" is not overwhelmed by a large volume of lies,  though this process may sometimes occur.  This problem is not new and the American public has been misinformed on a consistent basis by its government through much of its history, e.g., the Pentagon Papers.  And America has actively participated in disrupting the information of other countries, most recently in the "Arab Spring".  

Legislative solutions,  government interventions, and economic models like paying users for the information about them, all put the responsibility for managing the system outside the user.  It is likely that the new AI systems will attempt to circumvent any interventions that interfere with the algorithm goals, since they are goal-oriented programs!  When the user intentionally manages the response to the algorithms, the AI will react.  The user/interface dynamic must be used to control the viewing experience, so it is up to the user to express the control and direction he/she intends.  If platforms attempt to prevent this by limiting the users ability to select,  the choice is to abandon the platform.  Many platforms,  like MYSPACE,  have disappeared.  The idea of trusting the government to somehow legislate this consensus is the most dangerous of all,  and truly encourages "mind control" and 1984.  Most congressmen have so little understanding of internet and social media as to be ludicrous.

Enhancing the  interaction between user and AI system does not address the tendency of users to favor their own perspective and suppress other information.  It does not address the user's tendency to accept viewpoints of others with similar perspective, even when they are false observations.   The problem of the fragmentation of our social system is not caused by the expansion of social media,  though it facilitates diverse social networks.  This has generally been viewed as a great disaster on the Left when it fosters conspiracy theory sites like QAnon, or Right wing militant groups,  but also on the Right when the result is "cancel culture" of narrowly focused Liberal groups.

Educated viewers of TV do not believe most of the information promoted in television ads,  nor should they believe much of the information promoted in internet ads,  or even internet "postings" that purport to be shared by "friends" but are really ads, sometimes from BOTS.  Viewers are bombarded with false information in all media, and bear the responsibility for recognizing and dealing with this.  The only real solution to the integrity of internet communication is educated participation by users who are mindful of its limitations.  This requires an educated media viewer who is informed of the processes and can manage their own interaction with the system.  This training must begin at an early age because media actively engage young viewers into passive viewing habits.  Unless the country supports these changes in users,  the process will not be managed. 

IN A DEMOCRACY THE PEOPLE MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR POLITICAL ACTION WHICH INCLUDES THEIR INTERACTION WITH THE VARIOUS FORMS OF MEDIA USED TO INFLUENCE AND MANIPULATE THEM.  WITHOUT THIS DEMOCRACY IS THREATENED.

DECLUTTERING or FOCUSING

 The New Yorker re-posted a classic of its articles (according to them) "A Guide to Getting Rid of Almost Anything"   https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/02/28/a-guide-to-getting-rid-of-almost-everything-decluttering

True to the title,  it is mostly about how to get rid of stuff mostly by posting online at various sites,  with some interest in recovering compensation for doing so ($$) but also comments on charitable donations.  Nothing much is said about why  to get rid of the stuff,  only that you no longer need or care about it. 

I am also currently in the process of "decluttering" but I don't call it that and don't think if it that way.  I am getting older.  I realize that there is no burial mound or pyramid being prepared to hold all my clothes, books, and other stuff for my journey into the next world (whatever that is).  My stuff will not go with me.  (For those interested, listen to Kate Wolfe's "In China or a Woman's Heart".)   I still enjoy listening to some  recorded music,  and even on occasion watch a (not streamed) DVD movie.  I have re-read a few books,  but most of them will never be read again,  and sit on the bookshelf only to inform others of my reading history.

I am still very much interested in life,  my life right now,  and my life as it unfolds today, tomorrow and whenever, until it ends.  But much of my past life does not interest me, except when recounting it at parties in response to other's prompts.   The past is over, and lives in the present by how it has molded and guided me.  Our house has many objects that are associated with travels or other past events.  They are the stimulus for enjoyable memories from time to time.  The things we hold onto as stimuli for special memories are anchor us with the past, but must not replace the present, or distract from  its unfolding.  

More and more,  I think of removing things from my life-space to reduce the distractions of the past and facilitate focusing on the present,  and its unfolding into the future: FOCUSING.  There is only a finite amount of human life time,  measured in seconds, minutes, hours, days, and by actions that I choose to do.  Each action uses some of this time, and must supersede other possible actions that are not done.  And the stuff around me calls out to attend to it,  to use it, or to do something else.  

What if some day I change my mind and decide to do "that" action instead of "this" action?  What if I really need that guide or tool or instrument or something  to do some action, instead of what I am doing now?  This is the "Frost Dilemma": "two roads diverged in a yellow wood,  and would that I could travel both..."  Holding onto things, books, tools, is grounded in the dilemma of commitment.  If I decide to follow one path,  and still hold onto the resources for another, in case I need it sometime in the future, seems to make good sense.  But it reveals the uncertainty and anxiety of my commitment to the decision being made.  It is a "hedge against failure", and eventually life gets filled up with these "hedges".  My life does anyway.

So I am clearing out things that do not contribute to the life I am living now, and accept that by doing so, they will never contribute to my life in the future.  And that is OK,  that is the reality of the finite-ness and limitation of being human.

WE WERE BLIND: ALL THE LIGHT WE CANNOT SEE

"All the light we cannot see" is a Pulitzer prize winning book and movie.  A main theme is that two different characters both listen to a third broadcasting over long distance radio transmission, sometime in the 1930s.  One of the characters is blind,  but neither sees the broadcaster.   Radio, the transmission of audio signals by electromagnetic radiation,  was developed in the late 19th century, and became the major mode of long distance communication in the early part of the 20th century.  A radio set can have both transmission and reception capabilities,  but most popular systems involved a few powerful transmitters beaming to multiple receivers around the region (or country).  It is  a method of auditory mass communication and had a profound effect on social systems.  Until radio,  people depended on face to face interaction,  or brief (telegraph) or extended (newspaper) written communication.  Radio  transmitted live voice in real time (and music, etc), creating centers of persuasive influence.  It unified countries for better (as in Roosevelt's reassurances during the economic depression) or worse (as in Hitler's rise to mislead Germany).  Radio was the basis for the metaphoric "light we cannot see", and removed the role of direct visual information in experience,  while augmenting auditory.  Sporting events now had a way of sharing the experience using sportscasters to described the play-by-play events,  adding their own excitement to the descriptions.  And politicians could reach many more people than meetings and railroad connections.  But the listeners were missing some vital information, like the fact that Roosevelt was physically crippled by polio during all these broadcasts.

Radio was the beginning of the process of distancing human communication from face-to-face interaction while preserving some natural human experience.  It augmented the value of auditory verbal communication skills that included  emotional messaging.  (At the same time, at the turn of the century,  Edison enhanced the illusion of movement into "movies" creating a method of transferring visual information.  It would take several decades to evolve this into an audio-visual signal that could be transmitted over distances. )

The power of radio,  and the power of silent movies derives, at least partly, from the isolation and intensification of one sense as primary.  Blind people are better at hearing things,  and respond more fully to sounds.  The deaf are more attentive to visual signals and can "read lips" in ways that allow some understanding of speech.  When the two components are joined together in transmission,  some of the focus of separate senses is lost,  and techniques of enhancement,  lighting, audio processing, etc. are used to strengthen the sense of presence and emotional significance in audio-visual combined modes.

The story All the light we cannot see describes the focused experience of radio transmission, how it impacted and unified groups of people, and was used by authoritarian regimes.  After WWII "Radio Free Europe" represented this effort to promote "democracy" to dominated European countries.  We are all blind to discerning the manipulative processes in communication unless we "tune in" to understand them

SPIRITUALITY and RELIGION

 At this time of special holidays, let's consider the role of religion in our lives.  (I have blogged about this two previous times:  September 19th 2012 and July 26th 2022.  Each time included other elements. )

Religion is a way of understanding life that addresses three questions:  What is the origin of life?  How does each human life originate?  And what happens when a life ends?  What is Death?  Although someday, detailed answers for each of these questions may be provided by scientific studies,  the conclusions will be tentative.  All science is about observing what is, and how it changes with time.  The "basic principles" are always expanded and modified.  The place where science and religion intersect is evolution.  This was recognized when Darwin first proposed his theory with the dramatic negative reactions that ensued.  

Evolution says that the process of life is constantly changing to adapt to the surrounding environment, and the selection of these changes occurs by the selection of the gene patterns of the organism.  Many examples are documented in the animal world; changes in behavior are influenced by genetic factors, often termed instincts.  Humans (and perhaps cetaceans) are a puzzle.  The human cerebral cortex has expanded dramatically compared to the rest of the brain,  and it appears to be able to "over ride" some instinctual predetermined patterns.  When we make decisions that do not follow instinctual patterns are the results adaptive?  How do we decide if and when our decisions are consistent with evolutionary adaptation,  and when they lead away from it?  There must be some basic perception of our role in the world and how it unfolds,  and this is typically called spirituality.  Spirituality is the way of perceiving actions or choices that takes into account the broadest adaptive significance of the decision.  

Anyone can have a spiritual perception of life choices,  but most people do not attempt this,  preferring to use the already available guidance provided by the cultural patterns of the society in which they live.  These cultural patterns are often called "religion", or something similar, and include a "moral code" of actions and choices designed to promote the welfare, and evolutionary survival of the group.  But the world changes,  and codes and actions that apply at one time and place may not be useful in another.

From time to time,  individuals arise who propose changes to the choices of behavior in life,  often embedding the changes in justifications of the "divine inspiration" or some other basis.  These are the spiritual leaders,  guides,  and false prophets that challenge the status quo,  and sometimes originate new cultural patterns, "religions".   These spiritual guidelines always address two fundamental issues: how to provide for birthing of new members of the society,  and how to prevent, if possible, the death of other members.  Most religions have an "origin myth" that proposes how life (or human life) first arose.  For centuries,  religions specified little about what happened after life ended,  and sometimes a belief that life continued and required supportive objects in burial was part of the story.  Christianity was notable for formulating a specific connection between the behavior of the current life,  and presumptive rewards or punishments in the future.  Hinduism, with reincarnation, is less clearly defined, supposing that one returns in a life form more or less desirable. 

Religions are modifiable cultural forms that provide relief from the many anxieties of life by offering the presence of a "divine being" who manages the unfolding of life, and a community of support for the common dangers and fears of everyday life.  Or some other form of anxiety reduction.  They are not "true" or "false" in the ordinary sense,  but "effective" or "ineffective" for performing their tasks.

This brings us back to the question of the coming holidays: Are current religious practices effective at supporting those who participate at this time of winter holidays?  Do people feel supported and valued by standing in line to score special gift discounts?  Are youth comforted by comparing their gifts with those of friends?  Do families emphasize social connection when celebrating holidays?  Do they even get together at all?  Does the separation of families magnify the sense of social isolation for many during the holidays?  Have our choices and patterns of celebration departed from the support of the social system and begun to degrade it?  

Each person must answer this question for him or herself.

PERSONAL ACTIONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND POLLUTION

 My FACEBOOK site includes many entries about the current knowledge of climate change and controversies related to it.  Some of the information is depressing including  many predictions.  Is there anything we can do NOW to alter the course?  There are three separate problems that  come together and the solution to each one is different.  At least some of the climate effect is related to human activity,  so at least some of the solution must be changes in human behavior.

The climate problem is dramatic warming of the earth that is the result of the changes in atmosphere.  There is evidence that some of these changes are the result of the dramatic increase in use of fossil fuels that release CO2, methane and other substances into the atmosphere.  The solution to this includes: 1) finding and utilizing alternative energy sources to replace current human fossil fuel demands for energy. 2) Arresting and/or reversing atmospheric changes and their associated temperature effects.  and 3) Human adjustment to the changes already occurring that are not reversible.

( https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-08-27/worried-about-climate-change-you-can-make-a-difference-heres-how

The things I can do for climate change right now are reducing my "carbon footprint" including using less energy, and sourcing my energy from renewable sources.  A typical example might be using more energy at low usage times of others.   For example, the New Yorker talks about "moving slower" (not typical for New Yorkers) since the rate of speed of all transportation uses more energy.  

( https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/to-save-the-planet-should-we-really-be-moving-slower

This also includes modes of public transportation when many people are moved together at a reduced use of energy. 

( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/climate/buses-trains-ridership-climate-change.html

The idea of lowering your "carbon footprint" is not so clear.  An interactive checklist shows that the data for various personal changes is not always that significant.  It turns out that being "car free" and a diet without meat are more effective than lowering your thermostat, or car pooling.

( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/15/opinion/how-reduce-carbon-footprint-climate-change.html

Installing roof top solar panels on your home will certainly lower your electricity bill,  but it will not, by itself, in aggregate over many homes,  replace other sources of electricity.  Large solar, wind, and other projects must be funded to effectively replace demand,  and deal with storage issues.

( https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-06-29/can-rooftop-solar-alone-solve-climate-change-heres-the-answer-boiling-point    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/07/realestate/microgrid-solar-power-energy.html

 Climate changes do not impact all regions of the country equally.  Insurers now are able to rate houses and regions by their climate risk, and either give up writing insurance on risky homes,  or greatly increasing the cost.  This raises the question of why people choose to live in locations with high climate risk.  Some moved there without knowing.  Some cannot afford to move elsewhere.  But the long term consequences will not apply equally.

( https://firststreet.org/

 The following LA Times series addresses many of these and other issues.  Most important it keeps the issue in mind so that people can't use denial and avoidance to not deal with the unpleasant reality.  (People have been ignoring this since the 50s!)

( https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-08-15/climate-change-challenge

There are changes that must be done by large groups,  and this involves politics and political action.  A group of young people in Montana have sued the state about failing to protect their environment for future generations.

( https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/12/young-activists-held-v-montana-climate-change-first-constitutional-trial 

But at the federal level, many groups are in competition with each other for support,  rather than developing a unified voice.  

One of the effects of warming is a rise in sea level,  something that has already begun with the melting of arctic and antarctic ice.  There are two options:  spend impossible amounts of money to enclose shorelines over large areas (as in the Netherlands)  or move back away from the flooding regions.  Here again,  humans must decide what the best solutions are AS A GROUP.

( https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-09-21/does-california-have-what-it-takes-to-adapt-to-sea-level-rise-new-book-offers-hope-boiling-point

( https://bookshop.org/p/books/california-against-the-sea-visions-for-our-changing-coastline/19407155

 Fire in drying forests is another result.  Here the option is really only to get out of the way,  though some choose to rebuild in fire ravaged places (like Paradise CA).

Climate changes  also figure in increasing drought in sensitive areas, reducing the available water supply as a result.  

( https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03517-0

To complicate things, one scientist points out that the targets and goals set for reducing carbon levels are not realistic and that more gradual changes are all that are possible,  with ongoing problems in climate.  He does not say we should abandon efforts,  but that the magnitude of what is needed is not doable in the current time frames.  The climate will continue to change.

( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/25/magazine/vaclav-smil-interview.html

 The problem of pollution is a separate but related issue.  Human daily activities create extensive waste, both biological,  unused foods,  materials,  and the wastes of industrial production.  These pose problems of 1) magnitude/amount the amounts so great that disposing of them without other disruption is difficult. 2) Persistence: some current waste elements do not degrade back to component natural elements in fractions of human lifetimes,  so there is an untenable accumulation over time. and 3) Toxicity: many substances have long term toxic effects from which humans must be protected.

The simplest answer is don't use things that pollute.  The less you use,  the less goes into landfills or is burned.  Fashionable clothing that is discarded after it goes out of style,  intentionally, to sell more fashion,  is a great example and landfills in Africa no longer accept this waste from developed countries.  Some of the problem is persistence: the manufacture of clothing with fabrics made of artificial fibers does not degrade back to natural substances rapidly, or at all.  So "recycling" is a misnomer for some substances and plastics.  They must be burned or continue to interfere in the soil.

( https://learn.eartheasy.com/guides/the-best-eco-friendly-alternatives-for-the-plastic-in-your-life/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/21/climate/plastics-recycling-trash-environment.html

PFAs are toxic long lasting substances involved in production of plastics and other materials that are distributed all over the earth at this point, are toxic to humans, and will not degrade for centuries.  They are slowly being eliminated legally but not yet everywhere.

Oddly, in a world with a high level of food production,  many are starving everyday,  and not just in under developed countries.  The effective and adequate distribution of food to avoid hunger does not occur in the US, the country with the highest GDP and collection of wealthiest persons.   And vast amounts of food are discarded every day both before sale as less desirable,  or after partial consumption.  This is a dramatic offense against nature, farming, and those who are starving everywhere.  And it contributes to pollution!!!

Ocean creatures are increasingly suffering from illnesses and disabilities because humans allow coastal waste to drain into the oceans with poor processing or none.  Making the seas our human toilets is just another form of pollution, with consequences on sea life,  and eventually back on humans.

Hiding behind these two problems is the issue of population: The human population of the earth is expanding at a rate that is not realistic for long term occupancy of the planet.  This problem impacts on the others.  The demand for energy is directly related to the  human activities that require energy input.   The production of pollution is directly related to the number of polluting humans and the types of pollution they create.  But the problem of population has two other features that are unique. The "demographic profile" of numbers against age in different groups is not the same.  Humans have finite productive lives,  so, as the profile ages, the local region of productivity is reduced.  The population becomes, in effect, non-productive and consuming.  The other issue of population is the apparent inability of human populations to adjust their birth-rate to accomodate space for other animals and plants.  The increasing numbers take over more and more earth-space for human needs and leave less for other species.  From the human economic viewpoint,  this is simply "survival of the fittest",  but from an evolutionary perspective,  other species are part of a broad ecologic evolutionary pattern,  and the excessive dominance of humans threatens to distort or damage this pattern.

( https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2019-4-july-august/mixed-media/human-race-sleepwalking-oblivion-nick-brandt

THE SHORT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION POSED AT THE START IS THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL CAN DO A LOT TO MODIFY CLIMATE CHANGE,  BUT UNLESS ALMOST EVERYONE MAKES THESE CHANGES THE EFFECTS WILL BE NEGLIGIBLE.  AND THE COST OF MAKING THE CHANGES IN ECONOMIC TERMS, AND IN PERSONAL COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE ARE VAST.  IT DOES NOT SEEM POSSIBLE FOR ADULT HUMANS IN DEVELOPED NATIONS TO ACCEPT THE DRASTIC ECONOMIC AND LIFESTYLE CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED. (The illusion of solving the problem by buying an electric car ignores how the car gets charged!)

AMERICAN BISON: A LESSON IN HUMAN ANIMAL RELATIONSHIPS

Ken Burns' most recent documentary effort is "The American Buffalo" a multipart series on the depletion and reintroduction of the buffalo in the US.  He combines several messages that are relevant to 1) contemporary environmental debates, 2) the place of indigenous peoples in the future of America, and 3) the basis of human relationships to other animal species.

In the Burns style,  narrators are mixed with still and movie footage in a narrative that has a specific direction.  In this series, the narrative describes the hunting of buffalo to near extinction, and then the various efforts to protect them and rebuild the herds.  Many of the narrators are from indigenous tribes historically related to buffalo hunting.  The simplest question of the series is: should the buffalo be preserved? prevented from going extinct?  The narrative poses a strong "yes" but the basis for this is not so clear.  The animal is "symbolic of America", according to who?  The animal is essential to the "preservation of the great plains", which are now mostly plowed and planted with food grasses.  The animal is the basis of the survival of the plains indigenous tribes, who have been displaced and abandoned by their conquerors.   None of these justifications explains the peculiar efforts to prevent the extinction,  and the inconsistent efforts to do so.  The narrative does not give a convincing national or economic explanation for the preservation of this animal, which turns out to be an important point.

The contemporary environmental debate is centered around the role of fossil fuels in producing climate change, and the need to reduce and reverse this effect if possible.  Several pathways exist to enable this goal,  but none involve preserving the buffalo directly.  Other protected species are the justification for preserving and protecting "wilderness" lands from development,  but these rarely involve climate change, and never the buffalo.  Similarly,  concerns about pollution are an environmental issue that does not involve the buffalo.  Is it relevant to environmental concerns?

Indigenous plains tribes hunted buffalo as a major source of food, clothing, housing, and tools for centuries before European arrival.  Despite their intensive hunting,  buffalo herds were counted in the millions at the time of European discovery.  The animals were also a part of their religious observance,  consistent with the importance of them in survival.  The relationship between native peoples and buffalo indicates a clear mutual interdependence,  with humans more dependent on the animal than the reverse.  This is similar to the dependent relationships of other native peoples to their natural environment and resources.  Over hundreds of thousands of years,  indigenous peoples occupied the Americas without exhausting its resources or overpopulating. (Claims that native hunters were responsible for the extinction of other North American species, including horse and camel, are now disputed.)  All this came to an end with the European migration.

Europe was experiencing economic population pressures that made the discovery of new lands an apparent solution.  It did not seem to matter that the lands were sparsely occupied by other humans,  because they had low population densities, did not have modern weapons, and they turned out to be vulnerable to European diseases.  Establishing an invasion on the East Coast of North America,  and in several regions of the Caribbean and South America proved relatively easy.  The migration of poor, indentured, and slave persons for labor,  was gradually followed by others seeking opportunities not available in the European world.  (The migration of Asians was very different.)  The emphasis on farming had no place for range animals,  and Europeans had no knowledge of or interest in consuming buffalo.  Buffalo had no value for the new population.

Like beaver, otter, fox, and other fur animals,  the hunting was initially for specific use in limited applications.  But the buffalo also represented a key vulnerability for the plains peoples who were resisting European expansion.  The narrative strongly suggests that eliminating buffalo was part of the strategy of controlling the native resistance.  After the Civil War a wholesale slaughter began when hides were used for the transfer belts in industrial machines.  And later the remaining bones were ground for fertilizer.  The fundamental understanding is that Europeans viewed the animal species (and plant species like giant redwoods) as PRODUCTS.  They were important only based on market value,  or as obstacles to producing products that were of market value.  This seems obvious to any person of European descent,  but represents a very different conception of human/animal relationships to native peoples.  This issue is not limited to the buffalo,  as depletion of seafood creatures for their market value has also been extensive,  and threatens the loss of sea foods.  The example of the whale is most obvious,  as these enormous creatures were hunted and killed for their fat to make oil for lighting households!  They were saved by the discovery of oil and gas as an alternative lighting source! (Whales are still threatened today when killed as a food source by certain countries.)  The difference between the native view of animals and the European view is the difference between dependence and exploitation.   Native peoples recognized their dependence on Nature and natural substances for survival,  and that these were limited and could be over utilized and lost.  Europeans viewed these new resources as available for exploitation, and so plentiful that they could be consumed without concern for depletion.  It is difficult to know whether this reflects a difference in experiences or a different way of relating to the natural world.  The fact that Europeans were intent on discovering new lands to supplant their dwindling home resources is epitomized in the British efforts to build an extensive colonial empire managed by the East India Company and other corporate interests.  Similar efforts are noted in Spanish, Portuguese, French, and other European colonization.  New lands were viewed as solving the economic problem of scarce resources in the homeland.  So the resources of the new lands were to be exploited as needed.  The buffalo had no place in this scheme.  No Europeans ate buffalo or used its resources until minor uses were discovered.  It is very dangerous for an animal or plant to be of value to Europeans (even more so for certain minerals!),  but even more dangerous to have no value at all!  This is the lesson of the buffalo.

If there is an important role for indigenous culture in the future of American society it is to revise the relationship to the natural world.  The American obsession with fossil fuels, especially oil, has created a society in which pollution, excessive travel at high speeds,  and disregard for local community are consequences.  And the pressure to consume this energy source only speeds toward its depletion.  The pattern of the buffalo is repeated over and over.  "Conservation" is really about people learning to balance their lifestyle with the available resources for an extended future. 

The buffalo narrative also gives a message about the relationship of human and other animal species.  We are not friends.  Some animals can be domesticated to a limited degree and used for labor and food.  Most are wild creatures that require their own habitats that are not suitable for most human occupation.  This requires separating the earth into human-suitable and wild animal-suitable habitats,  with inevitable overlap.  (Zoos were once useful for educating people about animal existence.  They are now just a form of economic exploitation of animals.  The informing can be done better with wild photography.)

The buffalo story is a wonderful example of how to learn about a way of living that has been forgotten in many human cultures.  It does not say that all humans should return to indigenous ways of living.  But it tells us that we cannot view Nature as an inexhaustible resource.  We must learn to live with Nature in a balance of consumption and replenishment.  And this balance may change with changes in climate,  and the number of humans supported at any given time may change dramatically.