Category Archives: Environment

Moral Food Choice

Posted on by under Environment, Ethics, Health

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!

 

 

 

Environmental Educator?

Posted on by under Environment

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.

Space Program

Posted on by under Environment

Awhile back, then President Bush, announced his desire to rejuvenate the Space Program. Apparently, the plan is to have a station on the Moon by 2020 and people on Mars by 2030. And, this can all be done for $400,000,000,000. At the risk of sounding cynical I have to point out a conspicuous, but commonly overlooked fact. A $400,000,000,000 projection by the government may mean a $1,200,000,000,000 reality for the taxpayers. Do most people think this is realistic and does the average person believe this would be money well spent? There is an even more important question for us to ask. What could come from this to improve our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren?

The actual benefit of the space program to a planet of people, the majority of which are; at war, starving, suffering from self-induced diseases and just plain scared of what the so-called leaders are doing is questionable, to say the least.  But what baffles me most is of the few people I have mentioned this to, there is support for continued exploration of Space. People think this is okay?

Some years ago I watched a program about Mars. The people in this program were absolutely enthusiastic in their support for the continued exploration of Mars in spite of what they already knew. It is claimed that scientists have determined a meteor hit Mars 16 million years ago and knocked some of its landmass into space. They further concluded that 13 thousand years ago one of these pieces of Mars entered Earth’s atmosphere and was then found on Antarctica in 1984. That part is amazing to me, as I can’t begin to imagine how they can make those determinations.

So, what was the all the fuss about? Apparently, in 1984 a rock was found on the ice; it was bagged and stored. Then, after about a decade, someone decided it looked like other samples presumed to have come from Mars, and it should be studied. They probed and studied it for years. They discovered what they believed might be signs of life on early Mars. You have to magnify these specimens 100,000 times to be able to see them and then you can make out what appears to be the fossils of segmented worms. But, after much time and even more money they backed off from the early predictions of proof of life on Mars. Now they say, ‘maybe not.’

Turns out many of the specimens which are studied are gathered each year from Antarctica through expeditions funded by several agencies, including NASA. Specifically, these expeditions are paid with taxpayer’s money to walk around looking for interesting rocks to bag and bring back. Apparently, this has been the routine for quite some time.

So, in the mid 90’s there was a lot of excitement in the scientific community about possibly having evidence that there is, or was, life on Mars. Perhaps it leaned more toward ‘was life on Mars’ because a Mars mission in the mid 70’s determined there were no organic molecules on the surface of the planet.  But, this did not seem to deter anyone as they have continued to fire rockets at Mars ever since. Sadly, they have continued in earnest for the last few decades, trying to get more information on a planet basically determined to be lifeless in the 70’s.

Can we justify spending money like this? I may have missed something important, but the way I see it, this country is on the verge of ruin, in many ways. The America I grew up in is being pared like it is the product of a hostile takeover. Kids are even starting to worry about their future here. America is heavily indebted to foreign countries around the globe and we have been informed it is so bad we won’t get the Social Security we have paid into all of our working lives. The air, water and food are becoming more polluted and we may be experiencing the effects of global warming. We can’t afford homes anymore. Benefits are becoming a thing of the past, as are good jobs. The rich are getting richer and the working class is getting poor. Medical coverage for everyone—forget it! I could go on all day in this vein, but I think I have made my point.

Consider for a minute what this all means. Just in the Mars portion of the space program you will find approximately 18 attempts have been made to launch rockets to Mars between 1964 and 2005. And with all the billions of dollars spent; the success of these missions, the contribution to humankind, can be measured in the quantity of photographs returned. Some of the early successful missions returned 21 photographs—I shudder to think how much each of those photos cost the taxpayers. Of course, by the end of the twentieth century we were getting back thousands of photos. I say we, but I had no say in the matter and I didn’t get any of the photos either. So someone gets thousands of photos for the billions of dollars and the lost lives offered up for such misguided endeavors as these, all in the name of progress and technology.

What progress, may I ask? What improvements has the space program brought to the lives of the average person? If I were feeling a little facetious, I might say ‘Teflon coated skillets.’ I am being facetious because Teflon didn’t come from the Space Program. Yes, I have heard many people say a lot of technology came to us from the space program. In my opinion that does not validate anything. To begin with one may rightly ask, in fact intelligently ask, how has most technology really improved life on earth? And if you could somehow conclude it has, I think it would be easy to argue the same thing could have been accomplished just for the sake of improved technology—without a space program. By the way, there is a technology which did improve life on some parts of the Earth. Plumbing! Check history, you may find this technology has eliminated more disease than everything else combined.

I was in the military when America put a man on the moon. What did we learn and how has humanity profited from that? One thing we do know for sure is that it is not made of green cheese! Is there something else we now know because a man landed on the moon? I mean something worth knowing, something with real value, you know, something helping you and your family in important ways? Something worth all the lost lives, the ruined lives, the waste of natural resources, the additional pollution and the billions of dollars wasted while many people suffered and starved? Do we have a new source of food and natural resources we are shuttling from the Moon? Are there colonies of people on the Moon right now developing wonder drugs in low gravity? I’m a bit of a pessimist on this one.

So, after spending billions of dollars while people go without food, shelter and soon, Social Security, someone has thousands and thousands of pictures of Mars. Well, what about those pictures of Mars? What has been learned? What do we know of the ’magnificent planet?’ (Not my words, just one of the sparkling monikers a scientist is apt to use when describing Mars and its continued exploration.) Scientists will tell you of all the planets in the Solar System, Mars has the most potential. The rest of the planets are just absolutely hostile to human life—uninhabitable. So this leaves Mars as the potential ‘oasis in space’ for human habitation.

What about this place? Mars is a little smaller than Earth with about one-third the gravity. The temperature on Mars is anywhere from minus 220 to minus 63 degrees Fahrenheit. The atmosphere is just the opposite of ours, what there is of it. On Earth we have about 78% nitrogen, Mars has 2.7%. On Earth there is less than 1% Carbon Dioxide, on Mars it is 95%. There is no water on the surface; there is no plant life, there is no animal life. Humans can adapt to some lousy conditions, but I don’t think we can adapt to this! Yeah, they will probably make some interesting proposals about how they will terraform this ‘potential oasis’ into a real life ‘Garden of Eden’ for another $1,000,000,000,000 or so. We can’t even keep the air clean on this planet, and this planet has evolved for billions of years to produce large volumes of just exactly the air we need. None the less though, they will still try to convince us they can make all the air and water we need—but only on other planets—not here. Sadly, they will convince enough people to have their way—and more money and lives will be wasted.

I wonder what stories were being fabricated about the Moon in the 60’s. What did they say about that dry, lifeless, still-unoccupied hunk of dirt which seemed so important to so many at that time? What can be said to make it seem as though all the lives, resources and money sacrificed for that effort were justifiable? Sadly, the Moon program had a lot to do with the very childish motivation of beating the Russians. And this was from the top down.

Some of the phrases used to describe the Mars landscape are; Death Valley, Mono Lake, Channeled Scabland in Washington, permafrost in Siberia and Antarctica and volcanoes in Hawaii. I think we should invest in property on Mars right away. Sounds like it could develop into a real-estate bubble at anytime.

By the way a round trip to Mars, at the speeds we can travel now, is between one and two years. I wonder how long it would take to get enough lumber to Mars to build malls and subdivisions, commuting at those speeds. I suppose we better find a planet close to Mars that is full of trees, because we won’t have trees on Earth for that job.

I am only hoping some people who are open to sensible thinking may consider whether we, as a society, can make sense out of supporting this type of endeavor. Fact is! Mars is a big chunk of lifeless dirt, just like the Moon, and I would rather spend what little resources, energy and money we have left trying to do something on this planet. I suppose in my way of thinking the grandiose plans should be reserved for when we have solved the serious problems. Just ask someone who is poor, sick or just not going to benefit directly from the space program, as in no job or fame, what they think of spending money exploring such things.

You know folks, we have problems! And as I talk to people, I sense awareness, but I detect a reluctance to talk about it. As if ignoring it will make it go away. I am tired and fed up with being lied to and taken advantage of. There is another stratum of people who make the decisions affecting our lives, our children’s lives and our country. And those decisions are generally being made to benefit those deciding. If we don’t wake up and change the way things are going, someday it will be too late.

There is plenty to fix right here, and dealing with the Space Program is not the total answer, but it is a start. I always point out if we can’t solve the small problems we will have no chance with the big ones. In this case, deciding if large amounts of money are going to continue being wasted exploring lifeless, useless objects is a simple problem. A few hundred years ago Jefferson said (paraphrased), if the common folk don’t stay involved in the happenings of government, government will run amuck. Well, we didn’t and it has.

I’ll tell you something—those nice folks in government need our help. They are in over their heads and don’t know what to do. I’m sure they must sense they are hanging on by their teeth as the condition of the country and the planet continues to decline. So we need to let them know we only want them to do things that make sense for the majority and if they continue to support foolishness they will be replaced. I do not wish to support foolishness, so in no particular order, I picked this foolishness first—and there are plenty more to go.

The thing disturbing me most in all this is so many common working people in this country are willing to support this kind of activity. It is simple, will the people of this country, including the next few generations, benefit from exploring Mars and can the country afford it? Those with the power may be able to foist their junk on the younger generation, because they just don’t know better yet. But, for those of us who were here in the middle of the last century, there should be no question. Aside from the potential rewards to a small percentage of the people who are looking for riches and glory, nothing important will be accomplished in the continued quest for Mars—just as nothing important was accomplished in the quest for the Moon.

Will we ever learn from history?