The Rich Are Obligated

Are rich people morally obligated to give part of their wealth to the poor? Financially speaking, 90% of the American population, the part you and I are in, share one-third of the nations personal assets.  Nine percent share a third and the top one percent of the population share a third. One out of three people are uninsured and we are experiencing double digit unemployment while….the rich are getting richer. In fact in the last year only 12 percent of the billionaires have seen a small decline in their fortunes and others have enjoyed large increases in theirs. The combined assets of 385 billionaires equals the combined assets of 2.5 billion people on the bottom of the financial spectrum. In the workplace the pay gap between the CEO and the majority of the workers has risen from 37 times greater in 1965 to 475 times greater in 2008. So if you are making $20.00 per hour the CEO is making $9500.00 in the same hour.

While writing this intro a question occurred to me ‘does anyone believe these people earn (deserve) this money?’ I have read several commentaries in which people make the comment ‘they earned it’. Come on, who earns almost $10,000.00 per hour? Because they were able to wrangle into these positions–they earned it?

Are rich people morally obligated to give part of their wealth to the poor? The contention developed from trying to answer this question is between those who think whatever a person acquires is theirs and those who believe we should all benefit from being part of the human community. As for me I say ‘those able are morally obligated to give to the poor.’ I would prefer that there wasn’t such an income disparity and I would have suggestions for that but, while stuck with the system we have I will stick to my position: The rich are obligated to the poor.

People don’t usually get rich in a vacuum. In a modern society such as ours a person may get rich legally or illegally, morally or immorally, eventually it won’t matter. They’ll be rich!

The laws and the morals of a society, right or wrong, are the production of that population and its predecessors. And it’s within the purview of the legalities and ethics of any community in which a person gets rich. Therefore; it seems any person who gets rich as the result of affiliation within a human community owes something back to the community that made it possible for him or her get rich?

So what does morally obligated mean?  A simple answer ‘wanting to do something because it’s the right thing to do.’ The dictionary definition of moral is ‘conformity to the rules of ‘right conduct.’ But how can we know when we act according to the rules of right conduct? To answer this I will defer to Kant. “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” What makes giving to the poor the right thing to do? As I stated in the introduction, because we are part of a community we have obligations to the community.  And in this case this obligation extends specifically to those who are able to do something about the generally poor condition of life for those in or near poverty.

In defense of my proposition that there is an obligation I will refer to Rousseau and his concept of ‘Social Contract.’ “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate , and in which each, while uniting himself with all , may still obey himself along, and remain as free a s before….Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”

From these statements I conclude we’re all obligated to the individuals in our community.

According to Rousseau we are born under a social contract; we have the right to expect something from society and society has the right to expect something from us. Rich people need the population’s support, whatever they are doing to obtain or maintain their wealth.

To further support the notion the rich should feel a moral obligation to the poor I think an order of magnitude leap is required. Not so long ago the people in this country enslaved other people and forced them to do their work for them. Many people became rich and powerful as a result of the blatant exploitation of humans. Consequently the economy thrived, the country prospered and they shipped their products to Europe. The slave owners extracted from the slaves what they wanted and the customers in Europe got what they wanted. (Sound familiar) Did anyone owe anything to the slaves? The slaves were a component in a system in which people benefited from their presence as the capitalists benefit from the poor class today. We can tell ourselves out loud this behavior disappeared with our ancestors, but it didn’t. It’s just less blatant now.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen,1943.

Neither the capitalist’s right to profits nor the laborer’s right to organization are absolute and unlimited; they are both subject to the common good of all. Both the right to profits and the right to organization are means, and as means they are to be judged by the way they promote the true ends of life. These rights therefore can be suspended for the common good of all.

I added this quote because this ideal gets lost in capitalism—in fact it’s trained out of us. In fact I suggest capitalism would be in trouble if not for the never ending supply of slave type labor. Most of the things purchased at Walmart’s 7000 stores are made in other countries by people who can’t afford to buy them. The prices are set by Walmart and the suppliers comply even when below profitability. But, because other people are forced to live this way, we in this country have more. And we get to have the illusion we are doing okay. At least two of Walmart’s owners are in the top 10 richest people in the world. They didn’t start Walmart and they force their suppliers below a reasonable living standard as they do their employees. Are they morally obligated to help the poor and the poor working class they help create?

In his 1883 essay the 19th century polymath, Yale professor, William Sumner is the epitome of the opposition. Quoting from an internet article,

Some of his ideas about the economic survival of the fittest and opposition to government intervention in the economy were applications of Darwin’s scientific ideas of evolution to the social sphere. He also drew upon the doctrines of laissez-faire….to argue that government intervention would disturb the “natural” and self-regulating market. Sumner’s writings justified government inaction in the face of vast social dislocations caused by rapid industrialization and the periodic economic depressions that accompanied it.

When people take the position of the survival of the financial fittest I think they confuse how things happen at the most basic level of life with how they should happen at the most complex. ‘Survival of the fittest’ denotes a struggle to succeed. This is a completely inaccurate depiction. But this distorted analogy might suffice if we lived in total anarchy and everyone was literally fighting for their own survival; but we are by choice, and by default, part of a community. The ‘survival of the fittest’ mantra is not applicable to the concept of a community working together for the betterment of its individuals.

The word natural is also injected where it doesn’t belong. How can we say what a natural market is? A natural market in reference to how humans should interact with each other cannot be defined by looking at how wild animals fight over food. And the term ‘self-regulating market’ is used as if to imply ‘fair market.’ I also think it is interesting that the people complaining about government intervention are usually complaining when it negatively impacts their ability to accumulate money. Even Sam Walton started out working for someone else. When he bought a franchise people came to his store—so he expanded. Bill Gates was fortunate that IBM wanted an operating system and that the first company they asked dropped the ball. Did these two benefit from being part of a community? Could they have succeeded without their respective communities? Do they owe something? There is little doubt….in advanced societies there is obligation. Personally I think our confusion about our moral obligation contributes to cognitive dissonance and therefore, depression in our culture.

In conclusion, there are innumerable reasons some succeed financially and some hit the bottom. According to Michael Sandel (Professor of Government at Harvard) those who succeed may do so for reasons they aren’t able to take credit for. When someone succeeds they get to enjoy the bounty. But they also seem to incur the adulation of a significant portion of the population. Perhaps it is reasonable for the same population to give credit to those who failed to succeed financially but perhaps would have, given similar circumstances. The founders of this country fought for the ideal we are all equal and deserve the right of the pursuit of happiness. But still—not everyone gets that right!

 

 

Moral Food Choice

We have some responsibility for the condition of the future our families and friends will be living in. And regarding our responsibilities on any particular issue, we may choose . . . or not choose. But both lead to real consequences in the real world. Therefore, we will do well to choose . . . and choose wisely! From the destruction of our environment to the suffering and death of those we care about, wrong choices sometimes have terrible consequences. Morbidity and mortality statistics are usually insightful when defending such claims—so here’s a couple. Over the course of the 20th century the statistics on cancer in humans has increased from about 5% to about 33%—and this alarming fact is projected to continue worsening. There are multiple reasons for such statistics, and one of them includes our food supply. This is what I am going to try to focus on here. By the way it is heartbreaking as well for pet owners; some experts report that 60% of our pets are getting cancer now.

Most of us aren’t aware of the extent of damage caused by wrong food choices, but it’s serious—and we need to talk about it. The really bad news is that it appears our wrong choices will be even more detrimental to our children’s future. But on a more positive note—the good news is that if we make the right decisions in time we can make positive contributions to the future for our children and grandchildren. And we are surely obligated to do this because it was our choices that brought them here.

The big question going in to this essay is:

                                 Are we making moral food choices?

To properly answer this question we have to consider how we answer our important questions. If our answers lead to flourishing of life for the inhabitants of the planet then the choices are surely moral. From that point we need only follow the dictates of morality; then we will be doing all we can for our children and grandchildren. For some people this may seem too tough, but my intuition informs me that most parents want to do what they can for their children—no matter what it takes.

For many of us it’s common, even comforting, to recall the images given us in stories of small farms with vast grassland for animals to graze. A few jingles about strong bones and muscles strategically placed by the appropriate industries—and we feel assured that this is normal, healthful and ethical. But it’s not! Some of our sciences give us important insights into how to best produce and consume our food. We learn more about what nourishes us best, what is causing morbidity and which processes are most destructive. Some of the common issues regarding our food production and consumption include: pollution to our air, water and land; even to our bodies. Also included; the detrimental effects of chemicals to our health and to the environment and now we are even concerned about what the industry takes from the animals exploited by it.

Within the familiar culture of the US most of us get used to buying our dinner wrapped in cellophane, ready for the barbecue. We don’t need to know much about what happens or what the damage is before the animals end up on the meat department display counter. And until the last few decades little was known about the damage done after we take those faceless, cellophane packages home. For most of us a ‘reasonable’ price is all the information needed, but this isn’t enough. We know too much now, we know it’s costing us—and the cost is too great! The incidence of vascular disease and cancer take a huge toll on life and the waste generated in the industry is destructive to everything that matters.

Animals have been farmed for human consumption for a long time. But the 20th century ushered significant changes in animal farming. New technologies allowed high density farming while economies demanded it. This high tech, high volume farming has commonly been referred to as factory farming, but in more sophisticated circles CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feed Operation) may be preferred. This mode of farming improves efficiency, lowering the cost of bringing animal products to the grocery shelves while, on the other side of the coin, exacerbating inherent problems in the animal production industry.

The food animal business (meat, dairy and egg) provides products highly demanded by the majority of the population. It also supplies jobs for a significant segment of society and financial gratification for those in the position to benefit. This industry has grown as a result of demand and the ability to supply that demand with modern tools and technologies. Along with the growth of the animal production industry is a growth in concern for the impact this industry has on the environment and ultimately . . . our lives.

As it is with many industries; the true cost of animal products is not revealed in the sticker price. The deferred costs (externalities), not paid at the time of purchase, will be paid eventually. These costs include: destruction of the environment, acute and chronic diseases and early death. We pay for the shortsighted choices of our predecessors and our children and grandchildren will continue the tradition by paying for ours.

There are movements trying to mitigate the negatives of the animal industry on the environment, but the effects of these movements are small in comparison to the combined pressures of the industries bearing down on our planet today. As well intentioned as these efforts are, they may slow the problem but will not solve it. Animal production and consumption is nothing new, but with crowding and technology, we now live in a different reality. The message to take away from this:

        We cannot continue to do what our ancestors did and get away with it.

Exploitation of animals by humans is as American as apple pie, but this particular pie is bad for the planet—it’s bad for everything. We unwittingly propagate the destructive, inherited tradition of animal consumption. Our economy, our way of life, is heavily dependent on the animal industry for food, jobs, research, medicine and entertainment. Our children are injected with substances derived from animals from infancy. Baby’s first foods contain animal products. Kids are taught to be kind to animals and told to eat all the animal flesh on their plate and to drink all their milk. Students learn they need animal protein daily as it shows up significantly in the food pyramid. School cafeterias are required to offer milk. At restaurants most entrees contain animal products and ads from grocery stores mostly promote animal products. Clothing, furniture, cosmetics, medicine and many other things we take for granted are byproducts of the animal production industry.

Unfortunately, in large part because of the predominately animal protein rich diet we inherit, a significant portion of our population will succumb to the two major killers—cancer and vascular disease. There are myriad causes of cancer, but it is now understood that diet is one of them. The use of animal products is prolific and ubiquitous; eroding our environment, our health and ultimately . . . our happiness. In the quest to appease humanity’s insatiable appetite we’re destroying the planet. Until enough of the population realizes the egregious error in one of our most familiar and cherished customs, eating animals and using them as means to our ends, humanity will not be able to evolve to its moral and intellectual capacity. And until then, we may not be able to think our way out of harm’s way.

Agriculture is fairly equally divided between animal and produce production. Employing approximately three million people; agriculture contributes 1.9% to the GDP. Throughout written history, and beyond, people have been eating and using animals. The U.S. population of vegetarians is around 4.2% and vegans add another 0.2%. So it’s easy to see—the huge majority of our population contributes to the problems of producing animals for human consumption.

Eating animals does offer at least one real advantage. You can find something, kill it and eat it. We have been taught a diet absent animal products is inferior. “Single plant protein foods usually are lower in protein quality than most animal proteins because they lack significant amounts of various essential amino acids (Tufts University Medical School). But some disagree. Unfortunately, animal consumption offers real disadvantages too—the destruction of our health and our environment.

The animal industry does everything to make eating animals a part of our belief system. We grew up on slogans like “Everybody needs milk” and “Milk does a body good.” But because of advances in knowledge we now know animal products are not the panacea once believed. We know producing animal products is detrimental to our environment, us and our children. The CDC has identified a number of pollutants associated with the discharge of animal waste into rivers and lakes, and into the air. The use of antibiotics may create antibiotic-resistant pathogens: parasites, bacteria, and viruses may be spread.

The misconception, upheld by the animal industry and supported by the diet and medical industries, that animal protein is superior to plant protein, has certainly been a strong argument for the production and consumption of animals. Fortunately scientists are giving us different information now. Dr. McDougall brings us up to date in ‘Where Do You Get Your Protein.’ “Since plants are made up of structurally sound cells with enzymes and hormones, they are by nature rich sources of proteins. In fact, so rich are plants that they can meet the protein needs of the earth’s largest animals: elephants, hippopotami, giraffes, and cows. You would be correct to deduce that the protein needs of relatively small humans can easily be met by plants.”

At one time the common knowledge was animals were automatons; without feeling, without soul, without virtue; other than a living resource for human exploitation. From this we learn—animals have no rights! “A poll of Oxford students found that 85% supported animal testing and 65% thought the launch of Pro-Test a good idea.”

In the 1920’s the use of vitamins allowed farmers to raise poultry indoors and in higher densities. By the ’50’s the use of antibiotics and vaccines extended high density farming; sickness in animals could be delayed long enough to turn them into food. For poultry this may typically be 45 days, and pigs 6 months. The industry has grown to produce and kill 10 billion animals per year in the U.S. The animal production industry is huge, and destructive. “According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are currently 450,000 Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) in the United States. AFOs contain animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and production operations in one combined land space. According to EPA, AFOs create more than 500 million tons of waste every year.”  This dangerous waste exceeds that of the human population and there have been no processing plants for it.

Another line of justification for the CAFO’s is these facilities have succeeded in bringing the cost of animal flesh down to being affordable by the poor—though this may have mostly to do with the increased efficiency from forcing so many more animals into the same amount of area. Along this line, the mantra of the educated is commonly to support the science of GMO’s as their educators have convinced them this technology is to produce more food to feed the world. The opponent of this mind set says we have enough food now; we just can’t efficiently distribute it where it’s needed. “World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720(kcal) per person per day.” (WorldHunger.org   2012 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics)

 Further justification for the factory farms includes economics. People are employed in the farming of animals, the production of crops to feed them, the production of medicines (more than half the antibiotics are used on animals in this country), the slaughtering, the storage, transportation and the wholesaling and retailing of the end products. But it’s inefficient and wasteful to cultivate animal flesh for human consumption. It requires about 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of flesh and the amount of water required to maintain this industry is staggering, and we face water shortages. This industry contributes significantly to deforestation, with deforestation contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. It is reported that deforestation, predominately for agriculture, occurs at a rate between 4,000 and 6,000 acres per hour. The facts tell us something in this regard: The production of animals degrades everything.

Some contend that the people working in this industry, especially in the slaughter process, are negatively impacted mentally and physically by association. But the stress from this industry affects everyone, suppliers as well as consumers and non consumers alike—in much the same way slavery adversely affected the slave trader, slave owner and the slave;  even those not participating in that culture. It’s a low paying industry and attracts a lot of desperate people, particularly the newly immigrated, and it’s dangerous! Here we have not even scratched the surface on the subject of epidemic and pandemic threats such as avian flu, swine flu and other pathogens known to migrate the once perceived, now non-existent, species barrier. There are many dozens of diseases attributed to human contact with animals. Suffice it to say, another unnecessary side effect of the human predilection for animal consumption. According to CDC, Farms on which animals are intensively reared can cause adverse health reactions in farm workers. Workers may develop acute and chronic lung disease, musculoskeletal injuries, and may catch infections that transmit from animals to human-beings.’There are over 150 pathogens in manure that could impact human health. Many of these pathogens are concerning because they can cause severe diarrhea. Healthy people who are exposed to pathogens can generally recover quickly, but those who have weakened immune systems are at increased risk for severe illness or death.’ http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/Docs/Understanding_CAFOs_NALBOH.pdf

Some of the larger countries are coming up to speed now. They will be able to far surpass the damage the U.S. has done to the environment and its inhabitants in a much shorter time. The China Feed Industry Association boasts a $50 billion a year animal feed industry which is predicted to surpass the U.S. this year. And they claim they are well positioned for expansion. In light of the problems in the world now, this should be a huge concern.

The notion that animals are here for us to use is supported by government, education, religion, retailing and of course—tradition and superstition. Our culture engages in the exploitation of animals for anything from science to pleasure and any use you can imagine in between. Advocates of the status-quo will tell you there is only a little cruelty and suffering in factory farms. To further this philosophy it is stated animals have always been confined, used, abused, beaten and eaten—it’s what they are here for. This was the same argument used by many to defend slavery.

Even though there are moral issues throughout this industry, to improve this situation the environmental argument may be best, but only in that as the environment continues to decline it will reach a point at which we will be forced to acknowledge our peril. It is the nature of our species to eventually reply, when pushed down far enough—usually near the bottom. When it becomes intolerable there will be a response from the masses—we can only hope it won’t be too late! Much like the global warming threat, nefariously called ‘hyperbole’ by many, we finally had to acknowledge that there really is something going on. Actually the animal industry is a major contributor to global warming. I have read that in California’s central valley the major pollutants in the air, contributing to the greenhouse problem and to breathing problems, come from animal wastes.

Aside from the possibility of lowering air quality in the areas around them, CAFOs also emit greenhouse gases, and therefore contribute to climate change. Globally, livestock operations are responsible for approximately 18% of greenhouse gas production and over 7% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (Massey & Ulmer, 2008). While carbon dioxide is often considered the primary greenhouse gas of concern, manure emits methane and nitrous oxide which are 23 and 300 times more potent as greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide, respectively. The EPA attributes manure management as the fourth leading source of nitrous oxide emissions and the fifth leading source of methane emissions (EPA, 2009)’ http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/Docs/Understanding_CAFOs_NALBOH.pdf.

If we accept the evidence provided as true and important then the logical and virtuous step any human should take is to stop participating in the animal production process—if there is no demand there will be no supply. Based on the facts, it seems this industry is bad for everything it touches; except the bank accounts of those running the show. The animal industry, a prominent feature of our culture, contributes to our biggest problems. One of our most revered traditions may be one of our most damaging. To overcome such insidious habits, which destroy our home and our health, will most likely require a major cultural shift. Probably the best course of action is education. It will have to be education for the young though; those who have already inherited their culture and beliefs usually cannot change, not even in the face of contrary evidence. Just an ancient human characteristic that for the modern human—is a flaw!

 

 

 

Killing Our Animal Friends

I read an article titled “Why I Farm” in the Mother Earth February 2007 edition. In his article Bryan Welch explains his animals are his friends and they live wonderful lives on his farm in the spring, and in the fall he kills his friends and eats them. As for me, I much prefer the morals of George Bernard Shaw who says,

“Animals are my friends and I don’t eat my friends.”

Later I read a section in the Mother Earth June 2007 edition titled “Is it kinder to not eat meat?” In this section one of the readers of  Welch’s article states that after not eating animals for some time he decided, but with questions, to resume eating animals. He went on to praise Welch for his wonderful article in which he especially liked the phrase, ‘caring but not sentimental,’ regarding those who raise animals for their flesh. It’s a good thing there are leaders for followers to follow.

Another reader stated  Welch’s attempt to justify his actions on spiritual grounds defies all logic. In my opinion, trying to understand or explain the things humans believe and do logically isn’t the best strategy. Welch responds to her letter and suggests her choice to not kill animals is admirable, but reminds her that creatures die even when we grow food. He points out animals die because of plowing fields and planting food. This, says Welch, deprives many animals of their homes and furthermore deprives many more animals of being born because their would-be parents have been displaced by fields of food. HUH? What peculiar thinking. Ten billion animals are slaughtered in the United States each year. I wonder if billions of animals are run over by tractors in the fields, perhaps millions, well—maybe thousands. It is obvious to a thinker that there is no comparison in the fields and the slaughter houses.

He also points out people ask him how he can eat his own animals. This keenly illustrates that it’s common for people to think there’s a difference in eating animals and killing them. In this culture people have managed to convince themselves the bad person is the one who does the killing and the ones who buy them in plastic wrap and eat them are guilt free. This is not unlike the slave owners who despised the slave traders for what they did.

Finally he poses a question asking if his lifestyle choice is ‘more or less egregious’ than the vegan lifestyle choice. Let me think about this—in the fall he finds his friends, slits their throats, peels off their skin and eats them.

For some reason Welch decided to write and publish his article on his lifestyle; and at least one person was encouraged to go back to eating animals–although he indicated he is still not sure it is right for him. I thought it only reasonable to elaborate on the opposite perspective; the perspective which is rooted in the ideal that we don’t have the self-given right to exploit other living creatures. A superior morality is based on ethics which are not human-centric, but rights-centric. This ethic allows us to recognize animals have lives, they have emotions, they raise families and they are our companions on this planet. It allows us to understand that although animals are not the same as us they have the same right to their proper life. Just ask a serious pet owner, vegetarian or meat eater, what they think about their pet. You will usually find they will identify and describe a life similar to ours. In fact if you didn’t know you may find it impossible to differentiate between a story about an animal and a story about a human. I chose not to eat animals in my first year of adulthood. I don’t contribute to the farming of animals because for me…it’s wrong; and it’s indefensible, no matter how many people say it’s right.

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” ~Thomas Paine.

In this commentary I would like to elaborate on the reasons I think are most important.

Ethics: The first is ‘morals.’ I choose not to take advantage of others. Of all the species on this planet we are the only ones able to choose; and with this privilege is the responsibility to make a rational choice. To me it comes down to a single virtue and a single rule which can only exist in humans—but this virtue is not sufficiently evident in most humans, and seems to be missing in some. Humankind must embrace this virtue and learn to live by this single rule if our species is ever to achieve its potential. And if this ever happens there would be no corruption, no killing and no poverty and we won’t need government, the police or the military. The virtue I speak of is ‘fairness,’ and the rule is, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ People complain if anyone bigger, stronger or smarter takes advantage of them, but the same people don’t seem to hesitate to pick on those weaker than they.

“For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.” ~Pythagoras.

If Pythagoras was right I guess some people aren’t going to know real love and joy.

Health: The second reason is for better health.  It’s common knowledge the consumption of animal products is a significant contributor to disease and death. Heart failure, stroke and cancer, the major causes of death in this country, are related to people eating animals. And it is extremely common to read in books regarding children’s health, that a major cause of ear infection and allergy are dairy products. I have read most of the antibiotics used in this country are used on animals, and we are approaching a serious crisis because many bacteria have developed antibiotic resistance; if a family member gets an infection which could be life threatening, the chance of fighting it with antibiotics is diminishing. The medical community reports indicate many thousands of people die from antibiotic-resistant infections. Animals carry disease causing organisms which cause sickness and death in the human population. Tens of millions of people become ill and thousands die due to consumption of foods contaminated because of the animal industry. As I am writing this many tons of contaminated animal products are being recalled—again; and as these animal products are being returned through the back door people are walking in the front door to buy more to feed their children.

Environment: The third reason would be in favor of a better environment for our children. The production of animals for consumption is damaging the environment; it’s polluting the air, the water and the land. Universities are researching some of these problems, such as the high concentrations of manure particles in the air getting into the lungs and then the blood stream. This can cause adverse reactions in humans; coincidentally problems with asthma have increased in epidemic proportion. Land is being ruined and waterways are being polluted with runoff from untreated manure. There are mountains of manure spread out across the country, but if one person was caught dumping solid waste from humans on the ground, they would be prosecuted. Animals produce much more waste than humans and it is more toxic to the environment. Statistics from EPA indicate over 70% of the rivers are polluted beyond safe levels. A recent tragedy with spinach contamination was reported to be the result of animal runoff getting to the fields where the food was growing. If you look at some of the large feedlots you will plainly see why there are such problems, but most people don’t see these.

“Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.” ~Albert Schweitzer.

Animal production is also very inefficient. It is common to hear comparisons like sixteen times more land is required to produce a pound of beef than a pound of grain. This wastes a lot of land and water which is bad news when you hear talk of critical water shortages by the years 2020-2025. Large corporations are already trying to gain control of water supplies, and it’s not so they can properly manage it to the best interest of the population.

Humanity: The fourth reason is for the sake of improving humanity. My personal belief is humankind will never evolve to its potential until we can choose to stop exploiting. Humans always have and apparently will continue to exploit humans, animals and everything else possible. Personally, I suggest to anyone who would like to live in a world without war, violence, corruption, fear, poverty, sickness and exploitation to consider whether participating in the constant violence perpetuated against the animal kingdom and the environment is the right course to follow. People are taught the contradictory behavior of claiming to be compassionate and at the same time abusing the animal kingdom. It seems this would cause a somewhat  sociopathic perception to be able to live with such dichotomy.

“The highest realms of thought are impossible to reach without first attaining an understanding of compassion.” ~Socrates (470- 399 BCE) Philosopher and Teacher.

I know a lot of people aren’t fully aware of what happens in the process of bringing animal products to the plate, and to what extent, but it is cruel, wasteful, polluting, inefficient, dangerous and degrading. Our culture teaches children to be nice to animals, then to kill animals and eat them. Is that conflicting? Parents tell their children there’s a tooth fairy and a Santa Clause; that rabbits lay eggs for Easter and everybody needs milk. And now they are learning a modern fairy tale—hamburgers grow on plants. But eventually the children learn the truth, although usually from someone else. And usually that someone else is a neighbor’s eight year old child. The bulk of our society looks their children in the eyes and lies to them and eventually another child tells them the truth? When I have talked to adults about this the response so far is 100%, ‘My parents told me those stories and it didn’t hurt me, and I will continue to do the same.’ But, there is no way to know if it hurts us or not.

Only 150 years ago the United States Government proclaimed the slaves emancipated. Too bad the general populous of that time couldn’t have taken credit for understanding the inhumanity of slavery and choosing to abolish it. Turns out, human slavery was sacrificed by the government to aid the effort in the Civil War. How do you explain the behavior of those Americans? The same way you explain the behavior of today’s Americans. Where those Americans wrong? There were some voices against slavery, but not enough. Are today’s cultures wrong? There are some voices against animal abuse, but again—not enough! The fact is people born into each generation are taught, and accept whatever is acceptable to their culture—right or wrong. And the majority never changes, even when they suspect it is wrong.

“Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity, and fashion will drive them to acquire any custom.” ~George Bernard Shaw.

From a strictly rational viewpoint producing animals for humans to consume is foolish; it is inhumane, unhealthy, expensive and wasteful. It’s not rationally defensible! I haven’t personally met anyone who could defend their choice to eat animals in a rational manner. I have met many who said they don’t eat much or they would like to give it up. And I have met a few who only had emotion and ego to support their desire to eat animals. You can usually pick that up in the level of hostility in their response. In four decades of being vegetarian several people have told me they would like to stop eating animals, but there was always someone in their family who would make it difficult for them. It was usually women who made this statement. Perhaps women are more sensitive to being exploited for obvious reasons, but don’t feel able to stand up for what they feel is right, for obvious reasons also.

This summarizes the type of information I have used to support my beliefs. But I have learned, over very many years, this approach generally does very little to persuade others. Fact is most of the points I make; ethical, health, environmental and humanitarian are virtually impossible to argue against—rationally. Most informed people don’t attempt to argue them, but many still get very emotional about it.

Actually if you want to try to influence someone’s choices your best and most effective approach is a predominately emotional appeal. Once a person makes a decision, which is usually emotional, then facts and figures do a wonderful job of justifying and supporting their decision. If someone reads this whose belief system is already in tune with it, they will readily accept it, but if someone reads it who doesn’t already believe it, then their existing belief system will filter it such that it will be rejected, classified irrelevant or at least unimportant, whether it is true and sensible or not. The point is it will be accepted by one and rendered null and void by the other, pretty much as their current belief system dictates, regardless of facts and figures and good old-fashioned common sense and compassion.

The average person just doesn’t have a lot of control over their beliefs and therefore, their choices. I once wondered why people seemed to be locked into the social strata into which they were born. I think it is because whatever image a person develops of his or herself, based on their culture, is a part of their belief system. This belief system and self image filters their reality in such a way as to keep them in their status quo, in their box. And this includes decisions of morality and spirituality as well.

But is one right and one wrong? One person raises friends, kills them and eats them and the other cultivates the soil, raises vegetables and eats them. Is one right, are both right? I have this sneaky suspicion if you randomly selected 100 children between 5 and 10 years of age, put them in a room with one person peeling potatoes and carrots and another person skinning sheep and calves, more of the children would think less of the animal butcher. I think that would be a safe bet.

“Put a rabbit and an apple in a crib with a child. If the child eats the rabbit and plays with the apple I will buy you a new car,” ~Harvey Diamond.

Is there absolute right and wrong? Most will say no, as they are inclined to treat right and wrong as relative concepts. I think this is probably okay as long as no harm is done. But I think there is a point at which an absolute wrong can be done. Can you call someone wrong when they are just doing what they were taught is right? If it’s not wrong to do what you are taught, to do what your culture does, then would it be okay to eat other people as long as it is a cultural choice? Would it be okay to eat an animal while it is still alive? Would you consider a person wrong for beating a dog to death with a bat before eating the dog to enhance one’s virility? How about a tribe raiding a village, murdering the men and stealing and raping the women? What might we think of people whose culture allows drowning baby girls in favor of having sons? In some cultures tying up chickens and pulling off their heads for entertainment is perceived to be okay and in some a crowd of people will carry a goat up several stories and throw it out a window to watch it splat. How about a family sitting down at the table in their nice suburban home to share a sliced up baby cow? Are some of these okay and some not? What if a cannibal comes to this country and eats somebody, is it okay because he was taught it’s okay? Ugly stuff…but real! But, as normal as it is to those raised with it, is it right or is it wrong? If it isn’t wrong for people to do these things, because it’s what they were taught, then it must be right. If it’s right then we should be okay with it—shouldn’t we? Perhaps this is another one of those situations where our ‘relative’ wrongs are okay but theirs aren’t.

In the process of trying to figure out the correct way to live I have developed a vague perception of right and wrong. And I have learned and developed a variety of theories to help understand the actions of humans, myself included. These are theories I consider when trying to understand human behavior, in this case that described by Bryan Welch. Humankind is always in the unique process of creating its own perception of right and wrong. This is done by structuring and restructuring belief systems supporting whatever has evolved to be considered truth. The really interesting point is that once a ‘truth’ is established the belief system will support it, right or wrong. This happens to be part of a mechanism we are born with which aids the survival process. One of the difficult lessons I have learned is ‘truth’ is whatever a society accepts as truth. If you are born into a culture which believes your teeth should be chipped into points with a rock, then your teeth will be pointed and when you have a child your child’s teeth will be pointed. If you are in a family believing you should be Catholic then there is a good chance you will Catholic, and later your children will be too. If you are part of a society which eats a variety of bugs, guess what you’ll eat for snacks. We tend to do just what we are taught; very few search for truth and even fewer change. And it gets worse because societies divide and subdivide truths anytime it is convenient. Just go to a couple dozen of hundreds of different churches, it will soon become evident. So this creates a dilemma for a few, how does one determine what is absolutely right, if there is such a concept, once it is understood that anything we believe may be, in an absolute sense, wrong?

Does this seem far fetched? At different times and places people have believed, taught and died for incorrect beliefs, or correct beliefs not accepted by society. Did you know Earth is flat; it is supported on the back of a tortoise? You know this is ridiculous because the tortoise would fall down. But actually the tortoise is standing on the back of other tortoises all the way down. Did you know Julius Caesar is part god? Yeah! His mother told him so when he was young. And, as it turns out, Zeus was quite a womanizer in his time. Well, it was all true at one time. ‘Their truth is our literature.’ George Washington contracted some sort of bug that probably wasn’t lethal, but none-the-less he died. He had about three doctors draining his blood until he was too weak to stay alive. The doctors surely thought they knew the truth, but without their intervention George Washington may not have died at that time. There is an infinite supply of what we may now perceive to be foolishness in history, but sadly there is also an infinite supply of the same foolishness in contemporary cultures everywhere. Turns out this ‘historical foolishness’ I refer to was at one time ‘contemporary truth.’ It seems through all time and all places, people are generally only able to detect the foolishness in others. Surely the people of every epoch believe they have the ‘truth.’ Just as do the people of the current epoch. And just as surely as the people of each succeeding epoch realize their predecessors were not as wise as they may have thought—so will our successors. Think about it!

The development and maintenance of the belief system is affected by the combination of an innate need to survive, the wish to feel safe and secure and the desire to answer life’s questions. An innate mechanism, controlled by the primitive brain, helps ensure the survival of our species. Another, virtually innate mechanism, the belief system, is passed to us through memes from our environment. This belief system affects our sense of security and our ability to make some sense out of life. It affects our choices and our actions.

During early childhood when the belief system is developing we are almost completely open to anything new. Once the belief system is developed we are almost completely closed to everything new. The brain and nervous system then function to support the belief system by modifying any stimulus which enters the nervous system. The frightening thing is it doesn’t matter if what we believe is based in truth or not. What matters is that it suits us! So ultimately we end up with myriad belief systems, each seeming to be correct and worth dying for. But, they can’t all be right; and possibly can all be wrong. So is it possible to rationally debate the virtues of different lifestyles? Only if there is a point at which it can be agreed there is a difference between right and wrong and it can be defined and agreed to.

Our history is one in which every conceivable wrong has been done and for the most part condoned, even by religion.  For me and the minority who believe along the same lines, there is a definite point at which an action is wrong. It is an absolute point. It is at the point of harm. Harm comes in degrees so let’s say ‘wrong’ starts at the point at which the best possible good is not the goal. So, whether the perpetrator knows it is wrong or not—the cannibal eating a neighbor, a rancher slitting an animal’s throat, a corporation polluting the environment or a government official taking money to vote contrary to the public’s best interest—it is wrong, it is causing harm. How can we know if we are doing wrong? One easy test, if you do anything to another you wouldn’t want done to yourself.

One of the difficult lessons I have learned is from a societal perspective to behave ‘correctly’ doesn’t necessarily mean to behave ‘right.’ In a seminar I attended the speaker asked the group to participate. Some of the things she wanted us to do seemed a little too ridiculous to me, so I didn’t participate. I looked around the room and everyone else was doing what she asked. The interesting thing was one of my coworkers said that by not doing what the speaker asked, I appeared to be the oddball, the one in the wrong. Could it have been that I, the oddball, was the only one who was right? Expanding the point a little begs the question, is having a majority agree on something sufficient to call it right?

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more often likely to be foolish than sensible. There is no impersonal reason for regarding the interests of human beings as more important than those of animals. We can destroy animals more easily than they can destroy us; that is the only solid basis of our claim to superiority.” ~Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) Humanitarian, Author, Nobel Prize for Literature 1950

Interestingly, even though this group of adults was being coerced to do foolish things, the individuals chose to follow. Certainly, it seems there was no blatant harm done there, but we all know group mentality is not necessarily the best at times, and problems do arise from people just following. So maybe there was harm in that action. I think it is better to be true to oneself than to follow the crowd. In another meeting with this same group of peers another lady told me, although she didn’t think the comments I made on the topic of discussion where politically correct, she agreed with me. Too many of us seem to be more concerned with whether we are speaking something acceptable than speaking something truthful.

Why are people able to live such different lifestyles and why are each able to defend their lifestyle as being right—even to the point of death? Simply—it’s because of our unique beliefs. Our brain and nervous system support our beliefs based on what we are exposed to as children. These beliefs are created for us by our parents, teachers, ministers, television, corporations and so on. Everything we have contact with and how we are taught to perceive our experiences affects the belief systems we develop during childhood. It is not about what we choose to believe, it is about what others teach us to believe. And our brain doesn’t discriminate between true and false or good and bad, it just integrates a belief system. And with this we pursue life, making decisions we think are based on facts and truth and good. A question which troubles me is, ‘how do I have any confidence my choices are good when I know the very basis of my beliefs may be incorrect?’ Some will say ‘why worry about it’? But, I don’t suppose for a moment anyone being acutely harmed by their culture would agree we shouldn’t worry about it.

Can people change their core belief system? Is it impossible or does it just seem that way? I consider the beliefs we are given during childhood to be core beliefs. The set of beliefs we carry into adulthood seems somewhat indelible, and seems to remain a component of our character for life. When a person, after childhood, makes what appears to be a radical change in a belief it may be just an intellectual override. A friend of mine, a vegetarian for thirty-five years once stated if his children were starving he would kill animals to feed them. I wonder; if we took his scenario to the extreme and assumed all the animals had been killed and his children were going to starve would he kill the people next door and feed them to his children. Seems ludicrous at first, but it illustrates a point. He had stated to protect his children he would do what he had decided, as an adult, was wrong—kill and eat animals. He was stating he would go back on his own choice—his own morality. He had made the decision to stop eating animals when he was 21 years of age, although he had never made the decision to eat animals as a child—it was made for him. And very importantly, the decision was made when his belief system was developing. He felt he could kill animals even though as an adult he had made the rational choice that killing and eating animals was wrong. The reason I use the example of killing the people next door is because it has been my experience that ‘normal’ people will only go to the point which their core beliefs allow. This is the point which is set for us in childhood. In his particular case the point set during childhood is, ‘it’s okay to kill animals but not okay to kill humans.’ It seemed on the surface he is willing to do what would be necessary to keep his children from starving, but this is most likely not the case. Not unless he is willing to go all the way and kill people to feed to them. Would he kill the neighbors? I don’t think so. So in actuality he was only willing to do what his mother told him was okay in order to protect his children. In all the years in which I have heard of millions of children starving in other countries, I have never heard of the parents going next door, killing a neighbor and bringing back a leg for the kids to gnaw on. I suspect if you confronted a reformed cannibal with the same scenario you would get the same result. Surely he would revert to killing his neighbors to feed his children. Why? Because his mother told him it was okay when he was a child. Is it impossible to change the core belief system which we are taught as children? We can learn and we can modify our perceptions, actions and reactions, but can we change the belief system our parents gave us? I don’t know, they are very strong.
Some research supports the notion that changing beliefs is nearly impossible. Researchers have concluded that once a child reaches a certain age, their nervous system is pretty much permanently structured and one of its major functions is then to support the beliefs developed in childhood and carried into adulthood. It doesn’t matter if what was learned is right or wrong. Our minds, in accordance with the beliefs we have, will make adjustments that affect how we perceive information, so it will fit the existing belief system.

So, exactly what is it that determines our moral baseline? Is it what we decide as informed adults or is it what mother tells us as children? In the previous example I think the answer is evident, ‘morals seem to be based on what mother says is okay more so than on what we decide as adults.’ I think it may be impossible or nearly impossible to change a belief transcribed into the nervous system during childhood. But if beliefs cannot be changed, then our only hope is to intellectually override our flawed beliefs and teach new and better beliefs to our children. Perhaps someday children will grow up with only the truth and none of their morals will be influenced by tradition, culture and the consumer industry. Until then as we continue to condition the minds of our children to match our belief systems, we will continue to perpetuate the myths.

What is this conditioning and how effective is it? One of my brothers once insisted that we not tell his young daughter where her food was coming from, and it wasn’t the vegetables he was worried about. We have to be taught at an early age to behave a certain way, to eat the specific animals we eat; those unique to each individual’s culture. It is interesting that people in one culture will spurn those in other cultures for eating animals they decide shouldn’t be eaten. That seems blatantly hypocritical, but it is common. I met a lady who will stop watching a movie if an animal is portrayed as being hurt, and then go to the kitchen and put a rack of ribs in the oven. I knew a fellow who would fight with you to defend an owl or an eagle and then go home and eat a chicken. I have seen people sitting at an event promoting the protection of greyhound dogs, while eating a hotdog. A woman was seeking donations to save the Mustangs and handing out coupons to a beef restaurant in town. And I have heard parents tell a child to be nice to the cat or dog; then tell them to eat the chicken, fish or pig on their plate. How can anyone not perceive this as hypocritical? In a culture such as ours shouldn’t a child be allowed to bring home an abandoned dog or cat, stab it in the chest, peel the skin off and throw it on the BBQ? Shouldn’t the child be able to do this in a society which eats animals every day, especially a child who has graduated from FFA? Shouldn’t this be okay in a society where people make a vocation out of mass producing, killing and preparing animals for consumption? At least the child wouldn’t be hypocritical. Fact is, it would be terrible, but so is the rest of it. Most people have learned to look at it through a specific cultural filter. A filter which turns this wrong into a ‘perceived’ right.

The mind has to be conditioned for the exploitation of animals or humans. Considering slavery, there has always been some who believed it wrong, but obviously there have been enough people who thought it sufficiently correct to maintain this horrific institution throughout history. The fact no well-balanced, right thinking person could condone such a practice is obvious, but it existed just the same, and it still does. So what is the answer to this puzzle? How is it, a new country made up largely of freedom seekers, the majority of which claimed to be Christian, supported such an institution? The answer is quite simple—childhood conditioning. The correct perception has to be created at an early age for the child to fit into the acceptable societal pattern. Just as those who participated in or otherwise supported slavery had to be conditioned from childhood, our children have to be conditioned to slaughter and eat animals. Why do they put animal flesh in infant’s food, if not to condition them to the taste? Yes, the taste buds need to be conditioned also. Researchers have demonstrated that the tastes infants learn to like influence what they prefer throughout life. What is the purpose of organizations such as FFA and 4H, if not to condition tender hearts to carry on the merciless task of exploiting innocent animals? Why are the medical and educational institutions able to promote eating animals? The people in these institutions have been conditioned by what their mothers taught them so their judgment is also skewed in that direction by their belief systems. What a mother teaches her child is powerful. Doctors can be educated on and observe first hand the detrimental effects of poor diet, smoking and drinking and still participate in that lifestyle. Why? Because their belief system tells them it is okay. The information that comes their way will be classified as worthwhile or not worthwhile based on their early training.

Some think we are in the age of enlightenment; humankind has arrived at the pinnacle. And those before us were by comparison, ignorant and devoid of the opportunity for true happiness which is ours alone because we live in the age of technology and understanding. Well, I suspect in a few hundred years our successors will think the same about us. Their history books will tell them we aren’t anywhere near the advanced, civilized humans we think we are. And they will conclude they are the enlightened generation. Are we enlightened? Are we any better off than people were a couple hundred years ago? We have wonderful x-ray machines, but some suggest using these machines for medical diagnostics and treatment may be causing disease. Antibiotics are becoming useless from misuse. The energy being generated by communication technology is interfering with radio astronomy. We have fast food and we have obesity, heart attacks, strokes and diabetes. We have the most food and the major killers in this country are related to diet. We have disease and unsatisfactory health care. We have a few rich and way too much poverty. And we have the internet with stats which indicate most of the top 100 search categories are related to sex. Medical science is still treating breast cancer the way it did in 1800—mastectomies. And dentists are still drilling holes and packing them with something, hopefully not as bad as mercury. There is uncontrolled corruption in government and business, countries continue to make war, there is on going genocide, mobs, gangs and domestic violence. We haven’t arrived anywhere; we just have more stuff. And I’m not so sure we are all that enlightened or happy. In fact, maybe we have less to be proud of because we should know better now.

So what about those people who sense their morals to be less than satisfactory? What about all those people who told me they would like to stop eating animals? Will they be able to do what they claim they want? In a world where right and wrong seem to be relative and subject to change with time and place—and the wind, is there any virtue in trying to do right? It’s not like you will be praised for doing the right things. But, you will be praised if you figure out how to make yourself rich producing some gadget that is interesting to play with for awhile, even if producing it causes destruction to life and environment. In this country a person doesn’t have to strive for moral excellence, but a few will. Personally, I am thankful for the few who do because if humankind ever looses what little humanity and compassion it has, this will soon be an unfit place to live.

I know this; society is what we and our predecessors have made of it. There are a lot of problems in this country. There is poverty, disease, crime, fear and insecurity. After the people in America came through the depression and WW2 there may have been a special time in America’s history. Perhaps the government wasn’t so big and so corrupt it couldn’t function somewhat on behalf of the public. Perhaps the mood was right. I think I grew up in America’s heyday, the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. It was a time when one adult working was common and was enough to raise a family of seven in comfort. I know I was fortunate. Although my father was a relatively poor man we went to new schools, lived in a new home and could go get jobs in local manufacturing businesses. We could buy things ‘made in America.’ In those days you had to work for what you wanted, and if you did you could do okay. Well it has changed and I blame about 90 percent of the problems on our politicians and the rest on us. And this is because I think most of us realize whatever is going on in the higher levels of government and big business stinks—but we do nothing about it.

Most of the problems humans are facing are due to the inability of societies to do what is right, regardless. A lot of people are willing to take advantage of others, but they shouldn’t. Unfortunately, there are many who take advantage of animals and people. We in the working class, the tax paying citizens end up paying for all the unchecked white collar crime and corporate welfare. Huge corporations poison our water, air, land and food, while making their families wealthy, and people still idolize the CEO’s. Our educational institutions sell out to the highest bidding advertisers. The medical and pharmaceutical industries are a fearful combination. American businesses buy from foreign countries, where it is suspected work conditions may resemble slave camps, and then sell the products to working class Americans. All the while the working class is thinking they are doing quite well because they can, seemingly, afford to by all this ‘inexpensive’ stuff. Meanwhile the corporation owners are becoming the richest people in the world. How many instances of this kind of inhumanity are there? Our world has lots of problems. In the case of animal farmers the contribution to pollution, disease, suffering and inhumanity is part of the choice. There is more to the choice to farm animals than just treating your friends nicely until you slit their throats and eat their flesh. This is an industry that does harm to animals, humans and the environment. But, for and industry to exist there has to be people willing to do what has to be done to provide the product and there has to be people willing to buy it. And there seems to be plenty of both.

With all the problems of mankind from birth defects, poverty, violence, crime, corruption, disease, suffering and early death, it seems we need to ask if we are right or wrong. It must be obvious to us something is peculiar about the way we view life when in the midst of all the negative things I have mentioned, and I only scratched the surface, we tend to go through the days saying, ‘have a nice day,’ or ‘it’s a wonderful world.’ You don’t have to look very far to figure out it just isn’t so. Should we continue to contribute to our own demise and the demise of posterity or should we change?  Change starts with the individual. If individuals can’t do the right things then neither can the government, corporations or any country. Where does this leave humankind? If you pay attention to what is going on then you already have the answer to that.

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” ~Count Leo Tolstoy (1828 – 1910) Russian Novelist, Poet, Ethicist.

The things which were familiar to me over fifty years ago are pretty much gone. And that will be okay, if the future holds something better—but I don’t see it. It’s somewhat scary for me to watch this country make the changes it has because I have children and grandchildren. If it worries you, perhaps you may ask if you are doing the best you can. Does it matter? I absolutely believe there is no person or body of persons who are capable of doing what is right for their country, their business, their society or their family while exploiting others; animals or humans. I do not believe anyone can detach from the abuse and suffering in one area of their life and be truly caring and compassionate in another.

“As long as human beings shed the blood of animals, there will never be peace. There is only one little step from killing animals to creating gas chambers a la Hitler and concentration camps a la Stalin. All such deeds are done in the name of ‘social justice.’ There will be no justice as long as man will stand with a knife or with a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is.” ~Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904 – 1991) Author, Nobel Laureate for Literature 1978.

I know of no justification for raising and killing animals. We don’t need to exploit them for anything; of this I am absolutely confident. But we do need them for something, their companionship and their help. Over the last four decades I have met many people who participate in the misery of the animal killing industry as consumers, and most of these people don’t share the confidence that what they do is right. I have a few relatives who will say, “Gimme meat to eat, yeah I need to kill something.” But I attribute that to their attempt to act manly or tough—you would have to meet them.

In this country we are free to pretty much do what we want within the framework of our laws and morals. And that is what we do, pretty much what we want. But look at where it has gotten us. In our culture we like to think we are compassionate and caring. But in reality we aren’t much different than our predecessors, just a little more technological. We learn to view our cultural choices and actions through our cultural belief system. This system of beliefs is designed to allow us to fit into our culture. It filters our reality so it is possible to justify whatever is normal for the time and place, whether it be white supremacy, male superiority, slavery or animal exploitation. That is what we are given so our conscience can survive. No one asks us how we want to be, we are taught how to be. Sure we can go out and choose a religion or a vocation and we think we are free to be whatever we want. And we are…as long as it fits in the confines of whatever we are taught. But if you look carefully you will notice people don’t stray too far from what they were taught, whether it be the religion or the class of work they choose. I used to wonder why people tended to stay in the financial strata they were raised in. Now it is clear, it is where we ‘believe’ we belong.

We are not alone in the folly of our ways. For example, there are other cultures where the thought of fornication is almost ‘taboo’ but in truth fornication is quite common there. Unfortunately for those people AIDS is at epidemic proportions because they’re doing what everyone acts like they’re not doing. What is worse is when someone is afflicted, usually women, they may be ostracized by their own family as if they were doing something out of the norm. Such a shame, and they want to act like there is nothing going on. Sadly, they con only themselves in this way. Just as we con only ourselves in the way we do.

So I think we should consider whether we want to follow along with what we were taught as children or make our own choices based on the desire to achieve the best outcome for ourselves and children. We should face the facts; we live in a consumer society and what we learn more than anything are consumer ethics. I don’t approve of this and I choose to not participate when possible, although it is getting tougher all the time. Just try to buy American. The American companies head for other countries and the store buyers buy foreign. What can you do?

It may be impossible to rationally answer the question, is there right and wrong? If it is true that the very definition of right and wrong is redefined for each generation by itself, how can we know? But for me, I will continue to do the best I can, I will try to do no harm to people or animals. And maybe my only justification is I wouldn’t want anyone or anything taking advantage of me, but for me this is enough. Perhaps some can better understand the concept of taking advantage by considering those who are getting wealthy at our expense. What do you think of a huge corporation that will knowingly damage the health of the people in a community in the process of making their billions of dollars? Or CEO’s who will take multi-millions of dollars from a corporation while the employees can barely afford to pay rent? How do you like the government that will do what it wants while ruining our way of life? What do you think of a 240 lb. man who will beat up a 150 lb. woman? What about a person who will take advantage of a helpless animal?

“Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” ~Albert Einstein.

A Real Heroine

Once in awhile someone does something beneficial for humans or animals or the environment. And once in a really long while someone does something beneficial for all life. This is extremely rare; but there is such a person. Strange—even though her contribution to all living things may be greater than that of, Einstein, Picasso, Lincoln or Columbus, her name is not nearly as familiar. One of her accomplishments, Silent Spring, published in 1962 is given credit for the start of a serious environmental movement. Her efforts are credited with contributing to the start of the Environmental Protection Agency, the banning of DDT, the development of the U.S. Clean Water ACT, and more. What she did for all of us was and still is—‘truly’ important. Who is this person whose contribution to humankind, and the planet as a whole, rivals all ‘important’ contributions throughout history? Her name is Rachel Carson!

After WW2, poisons were widely used. Rachel Carson disapproved of the government and industry spraying everyone and everything with poisons. One of Carson’s statements that critics use to attack her is, “Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life?” Carson believed if the public was going to be subjected to the risks associated with chemicals they had the right to understand what the risks were. The dominate mindset at the time was that mankind could and would control nature—and this hasn’t changed. They sprayed food crops, homes, schools and even sprayed children as they ate their lunches. By 1955 approximately 600 million pounds of DDT was produced per year. The thinking, if you want to call it thinking, was they could spray poisons to get rid of anything without considering the possible consequences—it seems they were wrong. They went to war with whatever they considered pests and when they did, the fallout spread to everything. Animals and animal products were contaminated, birds and fish were contaminated and their reproductive capacity diminished. There were reports of animals dying from the sprays. Carson, a Marine Biologist, had been studying the animals of the sea and was already sensitive to the fact they were being adversely affected by pollutants.

A person like Rachel Carson doesn’t come along very often. I’m not sure exactly what it takes to do great things, but whatever it is—she had it. She wrote and spoke about the dangers of the irresponsible use of chemicals. And when she had done all she could do—she had revolutionized the way we think about it. Certainly, her particular skills, scientist and accomplished writer, were important to what she did. But even more important, she had to care—a lot. This virtue would drive her to her goal while being pressed back by immeasurable adversity. I don’t suppose anyone knows why it is that a perceived strong person may be incapacitated when life burdens them excessively, and an apparently frail person may persevere. In Carson’s case, it was the frail and somewhat sickly person who came through as the real life heroine. She is a heroine of the first order. She fought not just for herself, but for all life on the planet.

It turns out that Rachel Carson was fighting the odds most of her life. Being a woman and continuing her education past high school in the 1920’s wasn’t easy. And changing her major from English to science surely added to an already difficult task. Then decades later she found herself in the position of trying to warn everyone about the dangers of the practice of poisoning too much too often; especially when the residual and long term effects weren’t known.  She was virtually alone, head to head in a battle with the huge corporations and the scientists and politicians who were locked into the mentality that man could and would overcome nature forcefully. One of the well known spokespersons for the chemical industry and adversary to Rachel Carson’s vision, Dr. White Stevens, stated she was wrong. His statement, which made sense to those on his side of the issue, sounds blatantly, chauvinistic and narrow-sighted to those of the opposite persuasion. “The crux, the fulcrum over which the argument chiefly rests, is that Miss Carson maintains that the balance of nature is a major force in the survival of man, whereas the modern chemist, the modern biologist and scientist, believes that man is steadily controlling nature.” ~ Robert White Stevens.

In a society such as ours the forces working against a thoughtful, responsible person trying to elicit important change are tremendous. Almost a half century later some people are trying to blame Rachel Carson for the millions of deaths from Malaria in other parts of the world, attributing this to the limitations placed on DDT in the early 70’s. The fact is, her book came out in 1962 and, after reading it, President Kennedy called for testing of the chemicals in question. “In one of her last public appearances, Carson testified before President Kennedy’s Science Advisory Committee. The committee issued its report on May 15, 1963, largely backing Carson’s scientific claims.” In 1972 the EPA came into existence and one of their early decisions, based on reports from government scientists, was to ban most DDT use in the U.S. Rachel Carson had passed away almost a decade earlier in 1964, but her detractors will still try to blame her for the actions of a federal government agency.

Rachel Carson, born May 27, 1907 in Springdale, Pennsylvania, spent her childhood on a farm where she was able to explore her passion, the natural world. She loved reading and writing and by ten years of age was being published. Her mother taught her about nature on and around the farm, but Rachel Carson was particularly enamored with the ocean. She would eventually dedicate much of her life to learning about the ocean, and then trying to save it.

She did very well in her studies of science while attending the Pennsylvania College for Women in the late 20’s and she went on to Johns Hopkins College. In 1935 she received her master’s degree in zoology. Unfortunately, due to her father’s death in 1935, she had to leave school and support her family, mother and sisters. She took a job in civil service. Working for the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, Carson was writing radio copy for educational radio broadcasts and then began writing part of a public brochure about the fisheries.

Writing was something she had wanted to do all her life. Her position as a biologist had given her opportunity to research and write. After work she could write using information she acquired from her research and she submitted her copy for publication. Rachel Carson wanted to write and now her position and knowledge in the sciences gave her something to write about. Before starting the project of writing Silent Spring, Carson had written three other books all about the sea which received great reviews. And her books spent a significant amount of time on the bestseller lists. From the mid 30’s to the early 40’s her essays were being published. Then in 1945 Carson became aware of DDT. She was interested and she wanted to write about it, but the publishers weren’t interested. Nothing she wrote about DDT was published until 1962.

Her success, in what is now the Fish and Wildlife Service, allowed for freedom in choosing her writing. Her manuscript for The Sea Around Us was completed in 1950. Sections of it appeared in various magazines and she received several awards. This second book was on the bestseller list for 86 weeks. With this publication and the republication of Under the Sea-Wind, which was also a bestseller, Carson was able to give up her job and start writing full time in 1952. In 1955, The Edge of the Sea was completed. The mid 50’s included more magazine articles and a plan for another book. But, her new interest, conservation, contributed to her abandonment of a book about evolution. Then in 1957 tragedy struck again. A niece died and Rachel Carson adopted her five year old son, Roger. At this time she was still caring for her mother.

It seems that with the new interest in conservation, insecticide spraying programs were of renewed interest to Carson. Also in 1957 the USDA headed up a program to eradicate the fire ant through aerial spraying of DDT. The fire ant had been in the country for almost 30 years and was not of significant concern. But now that all the WW2 militarily funded chemicals were prevalent, the fire ant—suspiciously—took on a threatening posture as far as the bureaucracies were concerned. This incident was instrumental in Carson’s choice to devote herself to the topic of pesticides. This was another in a series of catalysts sending her on a four year journey to complete Silent Spring. Carson attended FDA hearings on revising pesticide regulation in 1959. She came away discouraged. She witnessed first-hand how aggressive these companies could be and she heard testimony that was contrary to all the research she had done. She did research at the National Institute of Health library and was convinced there was a clear connection between pesticides and cancer.

By the time she was ready to start writing in 1960 her health failed and she was laid up for awhile. Ironically, just as she was completing a couple chapters on cancer she discovered lumps in her breast—she was told she needed a mastectomy. Soon after there were further complications in her life including worse news about her health—the cancer was malignant and had metastasized. The editing of Silent Spring was completed in 1962 and the book published.

Carson was deluged with requests for interviews and appearances but turned down most of them. She had been through a lot and had endured a lot from the tongues of the critics of her work. But beyond all that she was ill. She was taking radiation treatments through this period and at the time she was so weak her friend had to take her to and from the hospital. Perhaps if the people involved in her medical care had any notion of what this one woman had done they would have tried harder. Her book stirred interest all the way to the White House and stimulated some to act. Carson attended a congressional hearing and made a recommendation for an agency to be responsible for the condition of our environment.

Rachel Carson died in 1964, but what she started lives on in those who, like her, use their minds and try to live their conscience rather than their desires.

Carson credited her mother with instilling in her a love for the natural world. She was fortunate to live on a large farm and her mother spent time with her showing and telling her of the wonders of nature. At the time in her life when she decided to write her book on chemical pesticides she apparently was in need of a nudge. She had resisted writing this book as she believed there were others who could do better because of the subject matter. In fact she spent the better part of a year soliciting others to take on this task. She could find nobody. Then she got a call from a friend telling her that her bird sanctuary had been sprayed in a local aerial pesticide program and it was killing her birds. This appears to have been the impetus for her start in what probably was the most difficult period of her life.

When her book was released even the President was aware of it. It prompted him to act and set in motion congressional hearings and eventually agencies and laws. People all over the world have read her book and people are still reading it. There may be people who have broached topics of greater importance and affect than this, but if so, there aren’t many. Her legacy is so great that it may never dissipate as long as there are some intelligent, thinking people around. As long as there are some that aren’t blinded by greed or apathy, Rachel Carson’s contribution will be remembered. Her impact on the world is one of the greatest, but sadly it will never receive the attention and the adulation of the masses like that reserved for a movie or sports celebrity or even a popular fifteen year old singer. Truth is, this fact underscores the difficulty and futility of working with the collective mentality of the human species. Thankfully, it didn’t stop Rachel Carson.

“Rachel Carson made environmentalism respectable. Before Silent Spring nearly all Americans believed that science was a force for good. Carson’s work exposed the dark side of science. It showed that DDT and other chemicals we were using to enhance agricultural productivity were poisoning our lakes, rivers, oceans, and ourselves. Thanks to her, progress can no longer be measured solely in tons of wheat produced and millions of insects killed. Thanks to her, the destruction of nature can no longer be called progress.” ~Don Weiss.

As I studied Rachel Carson’s life, reading from many authors about the effects of her efforts, I soon realized that 46 years later she is still affecting us. What she set into motion continues today. No doubt, the problems were not solved in total. In fact the pollution problems have continued and increased; but it isn’t because we aren’t aware of what is going on. At least in her day people were naïve—we don’t have such excuses today!

Animals in Translation

In the book Animals in Translation the author claims to believe she has a special connection or at least a special understanding of animals because she is autistic. I do admire her accomplishment with her book—I know it’s a lot of work. I enjoyed the anecdotes and found some of the current theories about animals and humans interesting. In her book the author states she can identify the problems in the slaughter houses easier than a non-autistic person. She thinks the autistic person’s brain malfunctions in a way that creates some similarities in the way autistic persons and animals, perceive their environment. This is based on the theory that the frontal lobes of the autistic person’s brain are not functioning properly and the effect is similar to the inferior frontal lobe development of the animal brain. She also explains the human thought process functions in a very general manner, tending to miss details. And the animal brain, as well as the brain of the autistic person, functions in a very specific manner, to the point of getting overwhelmed by the details. In her analogy, as the number of trees increase a non-autistic person will eventually perceive a forest. But in the case of an autistic person or an animal, more trees will just be more trees. It is this kind of difference that allows her to perceive an environmental snafu which is bothering an animal when an experienced farmer cannot see the problem—even when standing in front of it.

My first thought was her book was going to explain how she is saving the animals. But that may not be the case. She seems to perform two roles. One role is to make the slaughtering process easier, which benefits the factory. The second role is to eliminate some stress for the animals. So the bottom line seems to be, this woman who claims to be able to think more like the animals, earns her living by using her ability to make the slaughter of the animals more efficient for the business man and less terrifying and painful for the animal. There’s no way I can know from her book what motivates her, so I cannot judge her motivation—but I can judge her work. And at this point I think I disapprove of what she does at the animal factories.

I have been vegetarian all my adult life, over forty years, and vegan for the last ten of those. Some people don’t understand why I listen to people whose ethics and morals are so different from mine. My reasoning is it tests my belief system. If I argue a point it is generally a learning experience, either for me or the other person, and sometimes both. Although more often I seem to be the one learning, even though it is usually about the unexplainable beliefs and behaviors of the human being. The way humans continue to cling to and pass on all sorts of destructive habits is perplexing and confounding to people who view life and our place in it as I do. The normal way of life in our society includes way too much; exploitation, poor diet, pollution, dangerous drugs and medications, abuse, corruption, greed, war, custom, superstition and myth. This all seems to be impossible for me to understand. I think most people don’t understand their own beliefs, they take them for granted. They absorb whatever is passed on to them by their parents and teachers. Sure, a lot of people spruce up or complicate their beliefs and even try to justify them with ‘so called’ facts, but they are still just the basic morality they were taught as children.

My comments on this book are just my opinions, and I am not trying to put down the author, I am just being critical of what she does because I think it’s wrong. And I admit I am not sure there isn’t some virtue in what she does, but it isn’t necessarily a justification for doing it. One may conclude that if the animals have to go through what they go through it may as well be with a little less suffering. But I remember reading one author stating that the people who took good care and showed kindness to their slaves were wrong. They were wrong because they were only obscuring the true depth of the hideous institution of slavery of people.

In my reality animals shouldn’t go through what they go through; they shouldn’t be raised for exploitation at all. And the hideous institution of cultivating animals for human use and consumption needs to be seen for what it is. Does making it easier to get the slaughtering process done help or hinder? The author suggests that in some functions of the slaughter process 100% success is just not practical and it is better to be satisfied with 95% success–sounds like she is working for the farmers. Does reaching a 95% success rate in these slaughter houses allow the public to think the process is something less than horrific? Does it allow people to think it is really humane and okay? If you were in a group of people to be executed and they let you know you were in the 5% that was going to slip through the crack, not be rendered unconscious first, because 100% is just too hard to accomplish, what would you think?

One of the problems humans have is we can be just as good at doing the wrong things as we can the right things. I know that because I also was indoctrinated by my culture. I learned all the basics that make a good, law abiding, consumer that goes to work regularly, eats animals and exploits the earth’s resources, votes and attends church at least once a year (on Easter) and doesn’t ask questions that come under the heading ‘taboo.’ This helps keep the masses content and the economy chugging along adequately.

Early in the book the author commented on anthropomorphizing. At first I thought this indicated she had learned well the lessons of her professors. Yet throughout the book I heard references to animal emotions and actions as if she could have been talking about humans. She even points out that people who work with animals use the same words to describe animal behaviors as those used for human behavior. And she uses plenty of anecdotes which support the notion that animals are like humans. But, by my way of thinking this is bound to happen because no matter how hard science and social conscience tries to convince us otherwise, there is a legitimate reason for anthropomorphism. And that reason is– animals are like us–that’s it, just that simple. And we are like them. Is that possible? Sure, they came from the same place we did and evolution had the same effect on the other animals it had on us. They too have brains and they too have needs, just like us. Why is this so hard for people to accept? Just because they aren’t exactly the same or we can’t figure them out doesn’t give us any right to exploit them. But I can see where this can be a monumental problem in that people will slaughter others just because their skin is a different color. The truth is each person has to either try to justify exploiting animals or not support the animal industry.

Should men exploit women, or whites exploit blacks? Should the rich exploit the poor; the strong exploit the weak or the smart exploit the stupid? I say no! But ask the same question of a white person, a male of any race or a rich person. If you can get them to answer honestly many will probably give a different answer than mine. Then, should a human exploit an animal? I say no! But ask your friends and relatives. Look in the mirror and ask yourself. I would like to ask the author the same question; although she has already answered it in her book. She said she tried to avoid eating animals, but it didn’t work for her–so much for her being able to empathize better because of her autism.

If a puppy, a cow and a child are jumping around ‘apparently’ having a good time one may quite easily determine they are feeling some kind of joy—and leave it at that. Or, like the author, you can go to school, get your head filled with the same theories as everyone else in your class, and like a well trained automaton, proclaim ‘the child is having fun, but the two animals are developing the functions of their hypothalamus for self-preservation.’  For the average human the second route makes a lot more sense in the long run because it works better in conjunction with the ongoing facade of ‘righteous exploitation’ and ‘humane slaughter.’ You can believe what you are told to believe or you can believe what you see, this is one of the advantages of growing up and being able to make your own choices.

I think it is somewhat hypocritical for a person who earns a living by making it easier for farmers to exploit animals, to lament the hobbling of a horse for mating purposes. This reminds me of people asking you to sign a petition to stop the abuse of greyhound dogs while they’re eating a hotdog. The author expressed sadness over horses being treated this way and apparent revulsion when telling of killer whales singling out a baby whale, eventually killing it and eating its tongue. Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that someone working for slaughter houses and eating animals a couple times a day would be the least bit bothered by such things. In the environment the author is in, humans do the same kinds of disgusting acts over and over—and then teach their children to do the same. And unless the author has never eaten a hamburger, what has she to say about what whales do? The whales singled out a helpless baby, hurt it, killed it and ate it. In fact, aren’t the author and others, indulging in the animal exploitation culture, singling out the helpless, hurting them, killing them and eating them? But that is different, right?

“I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when  men such as I look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.” ~Leonardo da Vinci

The author uses the term ‘humane slaughter,’ when explaining what she does. This phrase is known to some of us to be oxymoronic. If she could briefly step out of her reality and consider the implication of such a phrase she might have to agree that it is nonsensical.

Humane = compassionate, tender, sympathetic. Slaughter = violently or brutally kill. Conclusion, ‘humane slaughter’ = ‘tenderly and sympathetically-brutally kill.’ Some of us just don’t make sense of this. Unfortunately we are in the minority. Those who comprehend ‘humane slaughter’ are in the majority. Does being in the majority make a person right? Because if it does I am so far wrong it can’t be measured.

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more often likely to be foolish than sensible. There is no impersonal reason for regarding the interests of human beings as more important than those of animals. We can destroy animals more easily than they can destroy us; that is the only solid basis of our claim to superiority.” ~Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) Humanitarian, Author, Nobel Prize for Literature 1950.

We all know our immediate ancestors found ways to try to justify exploitation as well. But they went even further, they blatantly exploited humans. And people today still use the same excuses they used generations ago when exploiting humans; they aren’t human, they don’t feel, they are here for us to use as we please, and so on. They justified what they were doing to humans and people justify what they are doing to animals.

In the book the author stated she doesn’t approve of experimenting on animals unless something worthwhile may be learned. Who decides what is worthwhile–her– you? Is it worthwhile to put chemicals in the eyes of restrained animals to test products for makeup? Is vivisection worthwhile? Is it worthwhile to break the bones of animals for students to practice on or to shoot animals with high powered weapons for military research? People who think these are worthwhile probably think it was worthwhile to land a man on the moon and now to try to get a man on Mars. If you are one of these I will remind you that we are not shuttling valuable resources from the Moon and we don’t have scientists up there concocting valuable cures in low gravity. But there were billions spent, lives lost and resources wasted just proving it could be done. Great thinking!

Who has the right to make these decisions? What gives humans this right? Answer, human might, and that is all! Has nothing to do with intelligence, it’s all about power; and it seems that everyone has some degree of craving for power—you can even see it in children.

“There is no fundamental difference between man and animals in their mental faculties. Like man, they manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery. Sympathy for the animals is one of the noblest virtues with which man is endowed.” ~Charles Darwin

In her book the author spends some time elaborating on farmers masturbating their animals to collect sperm and tells how the farmers must pay attention to how each animal likes to have its penis played with. To me the whole concept of masturbating an animal is disgusting. I am thankful my lifestyle doesn’t require this bizarre behavior, but to provide for the average person’s lifestyle it is apparently necessary. To do this well is important and even admired from what was stated in her book. But when the author explained that farmers will even play with the animal’s anus to help them climax, I realized even more so how warped some of the behaviors in the animal consumption culture really are. I wonder what a young person thinks when he or she walks into the barn and sees one of his or her parents playing with an animal’s penis. The fact that the author lies down in pastures and lets cows lick her sounds a little strange too. Farmers fondling animals is sick, but in this book it is made to sound normal. I thought there are laws prohibiting this stuff. Think of it, people who are considered great farmers, probably looked up to by young, aspiring farmers; excel at ‘masturbating animals.’ And it is referred to as if it is normal and respectable. The fact is our minds will filter input to appropriately fit our personal belief systems so that even this information will not cause any change in most people that consider it.

How can a person ever begin to understand and accept anything that doesn’t fit into his or her established paradigm? The sad truth is we are taught wrong from the beginning, and the lessons we learn are inscribed deeply and almost indelibly into each of us. It is no wonder most people can’t change, even when they know they are wrong. So how can we ever get anywhere near our potential.

All cultures, if allowed, evolve their own paradigm. It doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong, it only matters that it satisfies the needs of society and individual, whatever those may be. And from what I can make out from studying the human species, survival and pleasure are the key factors. And it appears that humans have proven over and over again, they will do whatever is necessary to satisfy these needs. Sure, we can pretend like we are compassionate and spread this rumor generation after generation, but it is not the case. Life is ugly and so is human nature—and humans always have and apparently always will do their best to keep it that way.

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right.” ~Thomas Paine.

I wonder if people, like the author, feel any responsibility for the fact that many of the diseases we deal with; HIV,  mad cow, swine flu, avian flu, etc. affect animals and humans. There are many dozens of diseases which afflict humans because of close contact with animals–so raising billions of them for consumption seems  counterproductive to health.

How about all the contamination of the land, air and water? Are there any feelings about the people that die because of contamination of our food crops by animal runoff, such as the recent spinach problem in central California? What about all the animal-protein/fat diet-related disorders that inflict the human population such as; cancer, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, etc? While the ‘developed’ world is struggling with all the pollution, disease, misery, waste and destruction inflicted on the planet by the production of animals, I wonder why so many people close their eyes, as if it isn’t so.

“To close your eyes will not ease another’s pain.” ~Ancient Chinese Proverb

I know I am just testing my own belief system here, but I still hope that on occasion it will cause someone to scrutinize their beliefs as well. The human species is an interesting bunch. Most think we have evolved, but in actuality, not much has really changed. Humans still kill each other, and are still greedy, selfish and barbaric. Humans exploit whatever they can for their pleasure whether it is the resources, the environment, other humans or animals.

We think we have made improvements in human lives, but if you compare the lifespan of the early Presidents to the later you will not find much difference. If you check you will find they were performing mastectomies in 1800 and in 2007. And you can find that they too thought they were living at the best of times. You may notice we are not plagued with the same diseases as our relatives were in 1800–we have new ones. And the major reason we aren’t inflicted with the diseases of early America is due to the addition of plumbing, not because of medical miracles as they try to teach us. Still, knowing that our predecessors brought a lot of misery and death upon themselves by mixing their waste with their water doesn’t seem to have impressed us sufficiently. Society seems to think nothing of dumping the bodily wastes of tens of billions of animals on the ground, in the air and into the water. We think we are so smart, but we aren’t much different than our distant relatives, we just have cell phones now. I could go on for awhile in this vein, but I think I have made my point.

“Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity; and fashion will drive them to acquire any custom.” ~George Bernard Shaw.

It is beyond my capacity to understand how someone can spend so much time explaining to us just how smart animals are and how she can relate to them better than most and still–continue to be part of the problem.

 

Cabinet Drugs

There seems to be an increasing trend for kids to experiment with medications stored in their home medicine cabinets. This is dangerous and sometimes disastrous.”

This requires our intervention, according to the woman on the phone. It did sound like a worthwhile effort, but I didn’t think it would get to the root of the problem.

Our culture creates the conditions for this and many other problems. The same cultural conditions also contribute to drinking, smoking, drugs and abuse of anything else. Yes, it needs attention; as do many problems. But what is the ‘correct’ course of action? My wife and I don’t keep medicine in our medicine cabinet. We know medicine can have a legitimate place in people’s lives, but we also know there are serious problems with the way medicine is marketed, dispensed and used. Unfortunately medicine is part of a profit industry and therefore subject to all the propaganda and promotion of any other for profit industry products.

If kids are getting into medications and experimenting we must ask ourselves…why.

I know kids experiment, but as long as I can remember there were always medications in medicine cabinets and I didn’t hear of any problems with it. So why is it a problem now? I think it’s relevant to consider the examples around these kids. Consider what parents, teachers, television and magazines inundate them with from the time they are infants.

I remember when I was around eight years old, getting a lecture from my father. It wasn’t on the hazards of cigarettes to my body, it was on the hazards of my father to my body if he were to catch me smoking. Ironically, he was standing there threatening me—while puffing on a cigarette. He died with lung cancer! The fact is I did eventually smoke in my teen years, but quit before I was an adult. But as I look back on it, everyone was smoking—to encounter a non-smoker in the 50’s and 60’s was rare. It seems as though most people smoked—anywhere and anytime. In those days it didn’t even seem wrong to throw your cigarette butts on the ground, filter included. Not too long before, smoking was even recommended by doctors. Everyone around me smoked, invited me to smoke and supplied the cigarettes; so I smoked.

We live in a pill popping society and we learn that taking medicine ‘makes us better’. I work in a trade that puts me in a lot of homes and it’s common to see bottles of pills in these homes. I have been in homes where I would hear, repeatedly, the mother telling the children to take their pills. If you are around a group of people and they get on the subject, you will hear them sharing with each other the details of their medication—they know them by name and potency! Not so many years ago it was common to say ‘the doctor told me to take these pills and come back in 2 weeks.’ Now, the average person will refer to the medication by name, list the side effects, name the generic alternatives and sources and tell you the dosage in mg. just like they were talking about their favorite bread recipe. Don’t misunderstand me; I think we need to be informed about what the doctors are doing and why—but I don’t think that’s what this is about. And I think there are some legitimate uses of medication; but, I believe there is an overwhelming dependence on and abuse of medication by doctors and their patients in this country.

A kid growing up sees drugs in the home as a common thing. The doctors and parents teach children to use them to ‘feel better.’ Drugs are advertised everywhere. We are brainwashed to believe we need them—they are necessary; we can’t get along without them. And they will make us better. Believe it or not—they will even make us well. Companies now program us with ads telling us to go ask our doctors if we can take their drugs. And it must be working because they are still doing it.

While making a speech Dr. Deepak Chopra stated there were many more drug addictions from prescribed drugs than from street drugs. This should tell us something! In our culture a kid may see and hear well over four thousand commercials and/or advertisements a year. Some of these will teach them; happy, active, good-looking people carry a large ice chest full of beer with them wherever they go. Other ads are designed to hook them on smoking and others recommend we go ask our doctors if we should be taking a drug.

Some children aren’t allowed to attend school unless the parents or school staff gives them a drug to modify their behavior. There is, or by now was, legislation to create laws to allow elementary school children to self-medicate. What do you expect from children being brought up like this?

When financial planners talk about household budgets they are likely to include, along with food and utilities, prescriptions, just like it’s a staple in every household. Drugs are part of the staples now—bring home some milk and bread and don’t forget my prescription. Well, grocery stores have drug departments! I have been asked for my doctor’s name and responded that I don’t have a doctor. What? I guess I am the oddball. Or maybe this is indicative of a culture too dependent on this particular institution.

I recently heard a story about a four year old in a doctor’s office because of an ear ache. After the exam the doctor asked the father if he had any questions. The kid chimed in and asked if they should be taking a product that the child referred to by name. The product was for erectile dysfunction. The programming is working! If not on the current adult generation—it ‘will’ get the next generation. Actually this is who it is designed for.

If a kid smokes, drinks, takes prescription drugs or experiments with cabinet medication—where do you think they learned it? We can lock the cabinets and blame the children for experimenting, but that won’t fix the problem. And, we surely won’t be putting the blame where it belongs—with the parents, the institutions, the corporations and the government! What can you expect to happen in a society where the population allows the corporations to run ads recommending we get on their drugs? The kids are surely influenced as was the four-year old—and the parents are to blame for allowing such blatant marketing to continue. We can leave things as they are and nothing will improve—or we can change. If we change—and we stop supporting and contributing to the system I have referred to in its current state—then we may be able to do something better!

 

Environmental Educator?

I recently read an article in a local paper regarding, ‘environmental educators teaching fear, not facts.’ The author seemed to trivialize the damage and potential damage to the planet and its inhabitants resulting from the way we live. This author was particularly hard on people who are teaching children about environmental problems, claiming it’s just causing unnecessary stress. Well, I didn’t agree with most of what the author wrote. In fact I believe the author’s attitude toward environmental problems and environmental education has much to do with many of the problems which we and posterity face.

Personally, I’m frustrated and irritated with the constant stream of exaggerations and lies fed to us in the interest of maintaining the status-quo or making money. Our brains are conditioned through a lifetime blitz of advertising and education designed to create a consumer mentality and then our bodies are used to test products. We must realize our planet is now a huge uncontrolled experiment which may someday reveal just how much greed, suffering, pollution and crowding can be tolerated before total rebellion or total demise.

Referring to the article; I do agree with one thing I read at its beginning. We don’t need to teach very young children about deforestation and global warming, but I think we should teach them the importance of keeping their immediate environment clean. Children pass by my house daily going to and from school and I notice some of them demonstrate a total lack of regard for the environment as they throw their garbage on the ground. By the time a child is ten or twelve years of age they could be sufficiently involved in environmental issues to allow them to be aware and open minded to the concept of ‘environmental stewardship’ as they continue their education.

They absolutely should be learning about ways of living on this planet which aren’t centered on producing, selling and buying everything that can be thought of. Children need to be introduced to a concept which is radically different because they will not get away with digging up the natural resources, producing products, selling them and then burying them in large dumps in the planets landscape as we have done for the last century. In fact they may have to dig up landfill sites just to have raw materials.

We need to learn, ‘just because we can, doesn’t mean we should’.

Consider what Europe and the U.S. did to the environment; the water, the air and other natural resources with a few hundred million people in a century. What do you think will happen now that countries like China and India are serious producers with many, many more people, modern production capacity and the U.S. and European shopping complexes as outlets for their products? Think of what would happen to the U.S. if China decided to boycott our country.

The author mentions we came from a time when things like replanting forests was a losing proposition. Well this is another example of poor judgment and faulty decision-making. Unfortunately the same mentality exists today, and we continue to grow and produce without regard to the real costs to health, to the environment and to posterity. Much of what we do today produces side effects which are problems for us and will be problems for posterity.

Another of the comments in this article was adults were condemned for having jobs as loggers and for driving cars. Well, these aren’t without fault. Personally, I drive a pickup. I am an independent contractor and I must carry tools and supplies. I will choose an alternative or improvement when it is available and affordable. At this point there is little choice for me. And until we, as a society, insist we have better choices, nothing is going to improve. But, I don’t expect to see that happen as I think we have gone backwards in the last few decades. All you have to do is look at the size of the vehicles which are on the road as you drive around.

As far as logging is concerned, if the forests are being cut down at a faster rate than they are grown, then there is a problem with the logging industry. When shellfish were being harvested at too fast a rate, it became necessary to limit or prohibit the removal of shellfish on the West Coast, because that particular fishery was in danger. The people that made money diving for these were harmed by this decision, but if the alternative is to allow this fishery to be depleted, what choice is there? I suggest it is necessary for the good of society and the planet to have checks and balances. I think most people understand and agree with this.

I think a lot of people find some comfort in believing the myriad bureaucracies across the nation are on top of everything and taking care of us. That they are full of well meaning, intelligent people who spend their time and our money doing what is best for society. There may be some well-meaning people and there may be some intelligent people, but whether the best is being done for society is questionable in my mind.

In this same article there is reference to global warming, species extinction, deforestation, acid rain, and toxic waste. In my opinion, if global warming causes the oceans to rise 6 inches or 60 inches, it concerns me. If there’s a hole in the ozone over Antarctica that’s the size of Australia or the size of Austria, it concerns me. And when scientists experiment with and tamper with the food which I buy for my wife or my grandchildren it scares me—a lot! They may convince some that they want to make better food and more of it, but I don’t accept that. Food is being thrown away in alarming quantities. It is about the corporations making more and more money, and having more control. They make seeds which produce plants which are resistant to their brand of pesticide so farmers can buy and spray as much pesticide as they want. And then when it’s time to plant the next crop the farmers may have to go back to these large corporations to buy their seeds because of engineered terminator seeds. These are seeds that produce plants which produce seeds which will not germinate, so you have to go back and buy new seeds because you can’t use any seeds from your crops.

Regarding species extinction, I have read that somewhere around 137 species become extinct every day. And it has also been stated that some scientists anticipate the extinction of half the species on the planet in the next 100 years if the current rate of extinction persists. It has been stated that in the same period of time the planet will be completely deforested at the current rate of deforestation. The EPA has reported that 70 percent of our rivers and estuaries are polluted beyond reasonable or safe levels. And I have heard on the news the beaches in southern California, where I used to swim, have been posted at times warning against swimming because of pollution. And with regard to toxins, it is now known that we carry approximately 250 chemicals in our bodies which don’t belong there, and this may be causing problems we are not yet capable of connecting cause to effect.

I know there are always those who think there is going to be some revolutionary breakthrough in science and everything will be okay. I haven’t noticed it! In the late 1700’s they were doing mastectomies when a lump was detected and that is what they do now. In the late 1800’s they were driving cars with gasoline burning engines, the same thing exists today. Houses are still being built a stick at a time, using similar materials. Dentists are still drilling holes and packing them with potentially harmful materials. Kids are still being taught the 3 R’s and learning that sports are more important than art. This list could go on.

A couple years ago I was listening to a radio reporter on location at one of the well-known local rivers. The area was posted, warning against swimming because of pollution. He was interviewing adults as they arrived and I thought the statements these parents made were criminal. The parents were telling the reporter they had driven there, it was hot and they were taking their children into the water. I want to emphasize here, people knowingly subject their children to unnecessary risks; and it’s not just polluted rivers I’m referring to. Some of it may be because we’re not told the truth about the effects of toxins, so people don’t take the warnings seriously, as in this example.

Consider the contrast, the author of the article on the environment comments, ‘gloom and anxiety from the messages young children receive regarding the environment often overshadow the facts’. I wonder which is more harmful, the anxiety or the toxins in the river? It’s interesting to me that people can see the same world so differently… difference in perception because of difference in purpose!

In the article there was reference to a concerned parent saying their child is becoming more convinced humans and technology are bad for the planet. I personally think this child is on to something. If humans and technology are good for the planet, I would like to know in what ways. Some think it’s a wonderful world and a wonderful life. These things are easy to say when you’re lucky enough to be in a good place at a good time, but you don’t have to look very far at all to find disease, misery, war, corruption and pain. You just have to be aware. And it only takes a moment for a person’s life to change in such a way as to have first hand experience with how cruel life can be. How is this relevant? If we accept the pollution of our environment as part of life, and in turn accept the pollution of our bodies and minds as inevitable, then we accept the probable result; the limiting of our capacity to think clearly, to choose wisely and to live a healthy and happy life.

Also in the article is a reference to population growth rate declining since the 1960’s. It goes on to say that most demographers expect the world population to level in about 50 years. This appears to me somewhat misleading. Actually, the growth rate has decreased slightly, but that is a misleading point in the context of that article. If you check you will find the increasing population offsets the small decrease in rate and we end up with actual increases in population that have been fairly consistent recently, somewhere around 80 million every year. Fact is, according to the U.S. Census Bureau; the world population in 1950 was around 2.5 billion. In the year 2000 it was around 6.0 billion and it is forecast that by 2050 the world population will be 9.1 billion. I think it’s much more significant that the population is increasing every year by a quantity that will completely repopulate the entire United States in less than five year intervals, than the fact the rate of increase is decreasing in tenths of a percent. Another way of considering this level of population growth is during the first half of this century we will add to the world population approximately 11 times more than the population of the U.S. We are having problems now; what will it be like then? The fact the author of the article even mentioned the growth rate is decreasing, in light of the fact that population is still increasing, just shows how people can and will attempt to deceive.

Further into the article there is a phrase, ‘young people receive images of severe deforestation in the United States.’ I’ve seen and heard of areas in the West where I was told that logging had eliminated the forest. Let’s assume for the moment that the forests are managed better in the U.S. today. This is only a piece of the picture as the U.S. is only one place on the planet that has forests. I understand the forests which contain the majority of species of wildlife, up to 50 percent, are not in the U.S. but are in the tropical regions of the planet. The information I have read indicates that these areas are being deforested at unbelievable rates, 1 acre per second, if you can even begin to imagine that. And most of the cleared forestland is to grow feed to produce animals for the more affluent countries to eat. Just another problem as the large-scale production of animals is another example of poor decision making—because, from this we get water and air pollution, land degradation and disease.

Another comment in the article was others have implied that cutting down trees to build houses is a waste of a resource. My reaction is—sometimes it is. My parents raised 5 children in a 1200 square foot home. Now I see retired couples buying 3000 to 5000 square foot homes, with doors that are 8 feet tall. I don’t necessarily think using wood to build homes has to be a waste of resources, wood is a renewable resource, but I do consider cutting down trees to build excessively is wasteful.

There are problems in the world…real problems! Acting and talking like they are not here will not make them go away. I don’t understand what is to be accomplished by not telling it like it is. What is to be gained by trying to make all of these issues seem trivial and trying to keep them out of textbooks? Perhaps if we were informed and understood the problems and the possible solutions, we could all work toward improving life for ourselves and our children. I would hope the average person would want to help if they had an accurate understanding of the condition of our society, our country and the planet. But after reading the article I can understand why so many people think everything is okay.

As a rule I haven’t noticed the government bureaucracies looking for and identifying potential problems and then taking steps to fix them before they become catastrophic. It is the preferred posture to keep us slightly in the dark. It is apparent to me that when things get done in this country to benefit its citizens, it’s because people became alarmed. If people become sufficiently alarmed they begin to pull together and things begin to happen. People do this! Informed, concerned, ordinary people! Not bureaucracies! It is therefore important that we know the truth. It is important we learn about the problems and the solutions.

After watching a documentary on the sinking of the Titanic I began to think about the similarities between that tragedy and the tragic situation I think the human race is in now. I think about how things are changing and seem to be slowly getting worse and how I believe that it will continue to do so until reaching a critical point, possibly of no return. But somehow, as a society, we seem to just keep ignoring the signs and go about our daily activities as if everything is fine. The author of the article which prompted me to write this commentary is a fine example of a member of society in denial.

The interesting thing about change is that if it’s slow enough it will be tolerated; even when it’s objectionable. I have been told that if you put a frog into a pot of water and then heat it, the frog will stay in the pot and die. But if you drop a frog into a pot of very hot water it will jump out immediately.

The similarities in the tragedy of the Titanic and the tragedy of the human race are striking, in my opinion. According to people that have studied the records and have heard the stories of some of the survivors, the Titanic was apparently perceived to be unsinkable. It appears to me that most people today seem to believe, or at least live like they believe, that the human race, the United States of America and the planet Earth are, likewise, indestructible.

It is claimed, while the Titanic was taking on water, some people went back into their cabins to read a book or to get into bed. Some people were angered when the ship’s crew came to their cabins to tell them they needed to go to the upper decks for their own safety. Imagine a vessel almost a thousand feet long with the bow now under water because of flooding in the front compartments and the stern and propellers several stories out of the water. Picture hundreds of people hanging on to the stern rails as the angle of the ship increased toward the bottom of the ocean. It has been suggested the people on board were fairly comfortable with the idea the crew would fix the problem and they could go back to bed or another ship would arrive and save them. The ship’s band assembled on the stern deck and played. These people were clearly not accepting the fact they were in grave danger. In fact, one of the survivors commented many years after, that it wasn’t until she was in a lifeboat viewing from a distance, that she even considered it was possible the ship would sink. She had to see what was happening from another perspective before she could see the reality.

I think it’s worth noting the inability of these people to accept what was happening, and the calm confidence which seemed to pervade this scene. This unwarranted confidence was also deeply embedded in the public at large—everyone was deluded. Whether in the person of a crew member, a passenger or those on other ships or land who were informed via telegraph; the disbelief was pervasive.

A lot of people died that probably should not have, and  we should also note that the underlying contributing factors and the responses by everyone touched by this tragedy are present in our current situation, that of the passengers on the planet Earth.

Some of the contributing factors in the tragedy of the Titanic and the tragedy of our country have to do with poor decision making and apathy, and the ever-present problem of people being confident in the claims of others, even when the claims are unsubstantiated. Also, when the truth is known it may not be disseminated properly or perhaps not at all, sometimes trying to avoid panic. And if it is shared, people may not take it seriously or may not do anything about it anyway. And finally, the influence of ego and greed were present then, on the Titanic, as they are now. And these were the same destructive forces then as they are now. These are some of the underlying factors that cost many people their lives then as they do now and will continue to do so in the future.

The responses then and now included the human tendency to dismiss evidence if it conflicts with one’s beliefs. On the Titanic there was a slowness of the crew and passengers to respond to the seriousness of their situation. This was in part because they were not being told the truth; they were not being told how critical their situation was. And because they had heard and believed the ship was unsinkable, any evidence to the contrary was very difficult to accept. It seems that they, like us, were poorly informed. And they, like us, were willing to place unwarranted faith and confidence in others and other things, especially when it coincides with one’s beliefs. Therefore, as their lives were coming to an end they may have believed up to the last moments that everything was going to be okay. For many of them, it wasn’t! Humans want to believe that things are going to be okay, no matter what!

The article stated children become alarmed about toxic waste, deforestation, acid rain and global warming without learning the basic scientific facts about these complex issues. There is no doubt educators should use different models for creating awareness in a ten year old versus a sixteen year old student. But these are problems that do and will affect all of us so we should all learn about them in ways that are appropriate to age.

It appears that new science, at times, makes old science obsolete, sometimes making it appear incredibly humorous and sometimes incredibly stupid. It’s interesting that each generation thinks they are living in the age of enlightenment. But, in times gone by people were killed for espousing opinions contrary to the contemporary thinking. Bruno was burned at the stake for his perceived heresies; one of them being that he believed the Earth is not the center of the solar system. Newton thought comets re-supplied the sun with energy so it could continue to provide heat and light. George Washington was bled to death by the doctors who were treating him for a cold. I suspect his family had every confidence the doctors knew the truths of their science. Science told us the universe was static, it apparently isn’t according to newer science. In the century in which I grew up it was scientific fact that mankind could not travel faster than the speed of sound. And we learned through science the bumblebee can’t fly. Our current science has been showing us how to use toxic chemicals to farm our food and scientists are busy gene-splicing our vegetables with animals. The scary thing being, we can’t even begin to guess what problems this will create in the future. Finally, and last but not least, they have managed to make seeds from our food plants terminal so that they cannot be germinated.

As I read this article I had the feeling the author doesn’t want people to know too much of the truth. I can’t begin to understand why. People have died or had their lives shortened throughout history because of what they didn’t know or wouldn’t believe, just as they are today. Some of today’s perceived truths are incorrect but this will not be evident to most people until the next new science makes our current science obsolete. I don’t mean to suggest science is unworthy because of people’s folly. I’m suggesting the people who think science is the best source of answers may not be the best people to be making the decisions. Science is a process of learning and change, and science is not the truth nor is it the answer to anything by itself. We need to be careful about putting too much confidence in science; it’s a tool and we should use it as such. Human intuition is another tool we need to use even more so. To do so we must realize being part of the cosmos and being formed by the same processes as everything else, we are not separate. We must use what we know and what we feel to make decisions which are in the best interest of the whole environment, not just the human race, because without our proper environment we will not exist.

At the end of the article the author states, “Perhaps instead of ‘environmental science,’ we should just teach science.” I will not comment on this statement because for me to make what I believe to be the obvious response to it, is to do a disservice to the intelligence of anyone reading this, as well as to my own. So I will just stop here.