On chickens...

Fluffy two-week old Buff Orpington.

I don't eat chicken. Yes, I have been introducing meat back into my diet from a mostly-vegan standpoint. I am very excited to say that, after much hassling, the local health food/organic store is now carrying grass finished ground beef. While I still have to do some research into how the cattle that that beef comes from are treated and eventually slaughtered (my guess is that this will still not be beef that I feel comfortable eating), I believe the expansion of more humane niche markets is a good sign. I'm also happy to see that it sells fast. There are also tentative plans to support some local farmers and get larger portions of humane pasture-raised meats for freezing, but I doubt my diet will contain that much meat. Eating meat is always less sustainable than eating a diet wholly of plant matter. Of course, the best thing you can do for the environment is to not have children… But I'm not going to beat that particular bush today. Besides, I already have that covered!

So, I don’t I won't eat chicken. There is simply NO way to get humanely raised (in my mind, this means they are pastured) poultry from a store. There are essentially no legal protections for chickens. They aren't even covered under federal welfare or anti-cruelty laws. When you see "free-range" as a label, all that means is they are not in cages. Don’t be fooled by any labels when it comes to marketing animal products – when in doubt, look up the labeling standard. Chickens, by and large, still live in overcrowded filthy spaces, and most of them will never feel the fresh air. Eggs are the same – cage-free or free range gives you the impression these are healthier and happier chickens, but the difference is tiny.

These are some of the reasons my partner and I are diving into chicken ownership. Not for meat, but for eggs. And also to better understand chickens themselves. I spent several weeks at UC Davis working with cattle, for example. And several weeks tending to goats and sheep and other animals. I've spent several years with rodents and other lab animals. With respect to animals that are used (and abused) by humanity, I have little experience with poultry.

The Girls at four weeks: their first time outside!

Portland allows three backyard “hens”, so that’s what we got after some lucky guesswork into their sexes (hey, my animal science education is good for something). Our backyard is big enough, and wild enough, to give three hens foraging space. Given my summer job situation, our hens will have most of the day free to roam and eat grass and insects. My partner has built a large coop which allows them access to the ground without putting them in danger of predators (hopefully). Our neighborhood has raccoons, cats, hawks, and a substantial coyote population, so having a safe indoor space for them to roost in at night is essential. Chickens don’t do well in darkness.

Even though I have a farmer in me, fighting to get out, I am surprised by chickens. I'm used to horses, of course, so when I see herd behaviors in the chickens I get interested. For example, there is a definite alpha female in our flock-of-three.

Ena, sleepy pullet in the garden

In fact, at three weeks old they all had distinct personalities. This is another reason I refuse to eat store-bought poultry. I'm fine with eating animal-people if they live their lives naturally, in a way that lets them be themselves (i.e. exhibit a full range of natural behaviors), but this does not happen with mass-produced livestock. It just doesn’t. Now they are six weeks old and spending their first semi-supervised time out grazing in our lush (or overgrown) back yard.

Our little dark girl (Silver Laced Wyandotte), Ena, is curious and quite intelligent. She masters physical obstacles without trial and error (which the others use) by examining something in depth before tackling it. I look forward to seeing how she tackles free-range life in our back yard. She is always the hardest to catch, but she is calm when we hold her. Ena observes the world through her bright dark eyes with fascination rather than fear. She is also the most fastidious and cleans herself more than the others. Our pretty, smart, girl, I’m really looking forward to Ena’s eventual adult plumage. She already has a silver cape of feathers falling from her head.  She is also the best at flying and seems to enjoy bouncing from place to place without noticeable effort.

Orla, at six weeks.

Britta at seven weeks old - she flew up there herself!

Orla, who comes from a more dual-purpose breed (Buff Orpingtons are intended to be used as egg- and meat-birds), is significantly larger than the other two. She has loads of fabulous amber feathers, and more grow every day. These feathers are noticeably softer than our other two chickens, so, given her temperament, she’s the one you will find us petting the most. She is literally a friendly yellow-orange poof ball. She is our happy-go-lucky chick – she chills out when you're holding her and doesn’t get as excited when something new goes down. When she sleeps, even now, she sprawls. It took her longer to learn to perch than the other two, but when she learns something it sticks.  While she is a follower and not usually the first to investigate something new, when she does investigate, her bulk allows her to push her two fellows around. In these early days of free-range foraging, we have also found that she is quick to catch on that the world is edible. And an edible world is a good world! If you want a chicken to pet, she’s your girl. But if you have food, watch out! She is a food-pecking machine.

 Britta, our Mottled Java, is the bossy one. When Ena goes to investigate something new, Britta is keenly aware. Is it something she wants? If so, she pushes Ena aside. Her feathering is speckled such that she currently has one white wing and one black wing. Her feet and legs are also bright yellow with black freckles – which is very striking! She is more easily excited, but is more independent than the other two, such that she doesn’t scream as readily when separated. Of our girls, she is also the one who had the most issues with pasty bum when she was younger, which we chalk up to the fact that she had much longer downy chick-feathers around her vent than the other two. Possibly because of the extra handling she got then, I’d say she is the most human-aware of our flock. She will come up and sit on you, or hang out on your shoulder. When I tap a perch she hops up for a mealworm treat. She’s not as laid-back as Orla, or as generally observant as Ena; as she gets older, we have found that she is also the slowest to mature physically, with the adult plumage around her head only now beginning replacing her down.

When they are not busy scrounging for food or sleeping, the Girls play. They run around and “bounce” and even do “chicken jousting” where they run head-on at each other either to crash or dodge at the last moment. It’s also hilarious to see one of them (usually Ena) pick up a leaf or stick, triggering the others to chase her and play keep-away. They love exploring, too. It’s enormously relaxing watching our chickens – only seven weeks old now – forage in the yard.

We have yet to see our first egg, but our chickens are already part of the family. Here’s hoping they have long peaceful lives doing what comes naturally to them!

Salmon vs. Salmon

The market for salmon in the U.S. and around the world is increasing despite drastic declines in run numbers. The economic value of wild Pacific salmon alone is enormous, but as noted in NOAA’s 2009 report to Congress “…the combined value of the West Coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) recreational and commercial ocean fisheries dropped 46 percent in 2007 to about $39 million, from the 2002–2006 annual average of $71 million.”  

Aquaculture operations take a species of salmon that does well in the crowded conditions (usually Atlantic salmon) and puts them in large stationary nets in the ocean. The fish are then fed until they reach a harvestable size, allowing producers to have a ready supply of easily-caught fish to meet market demand year round. Despite apparent economic advantages, this ocean aquaculture does present some problems for the environment and local salmon populations. For one, these “fish farms” cause significant water pollution because the fish waste and everything that goes into the fish pens (including antibiotics) is concentrated in one area of the ocean. Farmed fish are also more susceptible to disease and parasites, which then spread to the wild fisheries if they come into contact with each other.  Despite the intention to prevent fish escaping, some inevitably escape and intermingle with wild populations. Possible interbreeding between the two physically-similar groups will change the genetics and potentially the fitness of wild salmon which are already threatened by over fishing and habitat destruction. Additionally, although farmed fish are generally considered less genetically “fit” for surviving in the wild, the reality is that they often have a competitive advantage over wild populations because their growth rate has been accelerated artificially to the point that they compete for food and nesting sites.

Of course, many of the Pacific salmon populations in the United States are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which leads to interesting legal questions. Since these species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, it is illegal to harm them in poarticular ways. There is no doubt that wild populations are being harmed by the aquaculture business. Since fish farms are private businesses, the consultation requirements of Section 7 in the ESA do not apply, but the Section 9 prohibition against “takes” of listed species does apply to private citizens. A “take” is defined broadly to prohibit both killing and more indirect harm to a listed species; because Pacific salmon are being killed by parasites like sea lice, or harmed by the impacts of escapees from the net pens, it seems clear that fish farms cause direct harm and are are therefore in violation of the ESA. 

Since at least some of the deleterious impacts on Pacific salmon are well-proved, aquaculture operations are required to obtain an “incidental take permit” pursuant to regulations promulgated under Section 10 of the ESA. These incidental take permits will protect the business from liability when their otherwise lawful activity might accidently kill or otherwise “take” a listed species. To be approved for a permit the business must create habitat conservation plans (HCPs) pursuant to in Section 10(a) of the ESA. The primary purpose of an HCP is to discuss any potential effects of the proposed taking and a plan on o those effects will be minimized or mitigated. These plans and their permits are enforceable through the ESA controls, meaning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the State, or even citizens through Section 11(g), can bring suit against a non-complying permit holder. Monitoring is also one of the requirements of HCPs, with the Services being allowed to delegate that task to the State or another agency as long as they report their findings regularly.

Unfortunately the current system of regulation on Pacific aquaculture is too lax. Despite the creation of HCPs, scientific evidence shows us that aquaculture operations continue to have a deleterious impact on wild salmon. The ESA mandates control this problem, but without interest in the harm cause by fish farming, the overburdened Services are unlikely to act against the industry. With the realities of today’s political climate, the best move towards change would be to bring suit under the ESA against States who permit operations in their coastal zone and monitor aquaculture pursuant to HCPs. States have broad authority over their coastal waters through the Coastal Zone Management Act even without HCP monitoring being delegated to state agencies. Future pressure on States will hopefully lead to increased accountability among existing fish farms and more analysis stateside before new operations are permitted. Additionally, financial pressure on States could lead to them investing and permitting only the most environmentally sustainable technologies and operations.

The recent draft aquaculture policy speaks to the continuance of sustainable aquaculture, with NOAA defining “sustainable” to include economic, social and environmental concerns. While this policy draft acknowledges the problems aquaculture causes wild fish, it does not go far enough in developing a definite plan for conservation of wild fisheries and management of aquaculture operations. Despite this problem, there are many ways that the salmon aquaculture industry could become more sustainable with respect to wild stock without destroying their economic viability. Studies show that the only way to stop disease and parasite spread with confidence is to make sure water isn’t shared between the farmed and wild fish. Management practices like stocking and culling the farmed fish frequently or placing the net pens away from wild fish migration routes could also help. New technologies offer the most help – in particular, having closed containment pens would prevent the problem of water-sharing while containing localized pollution. There is concern among the industry that they will have increased costs if they have to deal directly with their fish waste because the closed pens will collect it, but there are sustainable options for that as well: using the salmon refuse as fertilizer, fuel or food for other aquatic species. The non-profit Ocean Conservancy encourages lucrative solutions to the pollution caused by the net pens by farming deposit feeders like lobster, suspension feeders and seaweed in conjunction with the fish farms. Practices like this, along with locating production nets away from wild fish migration routes to decrease the possibility disease and parasite passage to wild stock, will potentially keep the whole system healthy. Although genetically modified salmon are a heated topic, farming sterilized salmon and salmon that are unlikely to survive even a short time in the wild may be another solution.

Whatever route we choose in the future, states need to be held accountable for the choices they make when permitting aquaculture operations off their coasts. There are alternatives to the current practices that would not destroy the industry and further incentives to pursue new and better technologies will only help preserve threatened wild salmon as the ESA mandates.

Or, consumers could educate themselves and choose to eat wild salmon over farmed salmon, and let the market be the force of conservation. But I won't hold my breath in reliance on that anytime soon, despite the fact that wild salmon is far better for you and the environment. Assuming, of course, the wild stock you are getting the fish from is healthy and no in danger of being over-fished or cut off from necessary river habitat with dams! But that's a topic for another day.

Manifest destiny, my ass!

The title is proof that commas are valuable implements to be used wisely.

I woke up today with the “This Land is Your Land” song in my head. Things of this random nature happen to me sometimes. Okay, they happen to me all the time. I was singing it in the shower when I realized how utterly depressing this song is. It’s about manifest destiny – the idea that the land (in the States in particular) is “ours” through destiny. Through fate. Assigned to us by a superior being. “Made” for us to use and enjoy as we see fit.

Of course, there were many versions of the song, some of which were clearly politicized to show a disinterest in privatizing property. The idea that the land was something that belonged to everyone was a novel concept, perhaps, when the song was written. What about the novel idea that the land belongs to no one?

I read the song in two principal ways: either the land belongs to everyone, meaning that (1) no one can lay claim to particular resources because everyone has some kind of right to the resources, or, (2) since the land belongs to everybody, nobody can lay claim to those uses without universal consensus.

This is assuming of course that when you say this land belongs to “you and me” it’s referring to human-peoples rather than the plants and animals that live with the Earth rather than on it.

State history has usually (and predictably) followed version #1: if the land is not privately owned, then everyone has some kind of right to the resources within. Option #2 is laughable – when has humanity ever, as a species (or even a country) had the foresight to agree on land use options? Over-exploitation was the legacy of public land until fairly recently, and its roots still have a strangle hold in some areas. Take my beloved Oregon: in the southeast arid land of the State cattle grazers still think that the land there is appropriate for cattle even though over 30 years of scientific studies show that cattle destroy riparian habitat, seriously damage sage-steppe ecosystems by contributing to soil loss, and encourage the spread of invasive species that are not palatable to native grazers. Since this kind of practice is going on right now in what is typically considered a “green” state, it’s no surprise that this kind of folk song is celebrated in the States – land use and land exploration was one of the founding principles of the “American Spirit”. All the worse for us, I say. Manifest destiny cripples us because most people can’t move past the idea that conquering land, and people, and nature is a good thing. Destruction and overuse are nothing to be proud of. Why not conquer health-care problems, or education problems or cruelty to children and animals?

My guess is that those things don’t inspire the proper frontier spirit. I mean, dealing with such things means paperwork. And compromise. And lawyers. Are you shuddering? Most people do. But people don’t shudder when they think of a cowboy out on the range, or a farmer standing behind his plow. American Spirit has been, and still is, defined by sweat and blood and the spirit of exploration and overcoming the wilderness – whether that wilderness is actual or metaphorical!

Land users still have this perception that the land is there for them to use until it is used up, because if they don’t use it and capitalize on the resources, someone else will benefit. This is the Tragedy of the Commons, and it’s still very much alive today. And forget the famous field-and-cattle analogy – the Earth is the “commons” that we are all rushing to use for our immediate gain. Whoever gets there first and fastest has become whoever uses the most and fastest. Add on top of that unchecked human population growth and the tragedy of the commons is more than the tragedy of overuse: it’s resource-rape. The “Quiver-full” movement is a perfect example of the extreme side to the Tragedy of the Commons. In fact, I’ve had people tell me it’s a good idea to have children and fill up the Earth, because if you don’t do it first, someone else will take the resources meant for your cluster of cells. The essay is called a “tragedy” for a reason, folks. Garrett Hardin saw how open land use leads to exploitation. It’s never discussed directly in his essay, but there are underlying themes of human greed, inability to cooperate and lack of foresight. There is also Garrett Hardin’s perception that regulation is needed to control human activity on public land, which I think speaks to how ingrained the right for individual use and exploitation (for economic gain in particular) is in this country. I can’t speak for other countries, but I suspect this is a theme of human existence and land use everywhere.

Steens Mountain — public land in Oregon!

The problem with this is that “getting there first” creates a relationship with the land that is use-based. Use the resources and move on, manifest destiny tells us. Conquer the world. Back when the United States was young the Earth was a huge place. Or so they tell us in the history books that romanticize the frontier spirit. They did not have the foresight to realize that as human population exceeds our planet’s generously calculated carrying capacity, the Earth’s resources become slim. And I’m just talking about resources specifically for human consumption – forget “aesthetic” (oh how I loath that distinction) resources like wilderness. Goodbye, manifest destiny; there is nothing left for you to conquer.

In summary: humanity, you suck. Please find a way to destroy yourself without destroying the Earth as well. Seriously, I wish you all the luck in the universe to that end.

In the alternative, my second solution would be to support more government regulation. That is, until I remember the government is run by humans as well. This flaw is easy to see in the history of public land management: a history of overuse in the form of timber harvesting, mining and exploitative grazing. Even the Taylor Grazing Act of 1834 did not solve the problem, even though it was largely written to tighten the use of public lands to prevent overgrazing. Range lands throughout the United States are still overgrazed, damaged, and unsuitable for wildlife and native plants. In fact, ranchers receive a subsidy to graze their cattle on federal land. To this day, fences, reservoirs, dams and seeding the land with non-native grasses are called “improvements” in our land management statutes. More proof that the concept of manifest destiny is still very much alive in the very framework of our government.

Perhaps the best solution would be to bow down to a robot overlord. We have created robots who can teach themselves to shoot a bow and arrows, or adjust their flight path to changing conditions, or visit Europa, or play chess. We have also created machines that have outgrown and surpassed their parents — they even commit patricide.

Let’s create something worthwhile for a change: a super intelligent ecosystem manager robot. Something that can regulate population growth and make laws that would protect the land without being prone to political wrangling or damaging human concepts like manifest destiny or religious puffery. Any robot who uses science – or is at least is programmed to err on the side of ecosystem protection when the science is unclear – would do a better job of land management than the system we have now.

And it would have to have lasers of course.

If you build it...

I love the old barns in Oregon. When I drive down the back roads I look for these crumbling weathered structures and think about the passage of time when I see them. At one point these barns were crisp and new, housing fodder for a homesteader’s animals and sheltering their equipment from eight months of rain. And now, a century later, they are still standing.

But there is evidence there that they won’t be standing for long. Some of them are in poor shape – held together in a balancing act between weathered planks and lichen. There was one barn that looked solid enough, but that I could sink my fingers into like it was thick cheese, the smell of the dry rot heavy in my hands. When I made a fist the wood fibers became fluffy and soft in my hand, and sugar ants trickled out of the hole I had made. Another barn’s roof had fallen in, and swallows nested all along the beams that are now open to the sky. Below the nests I can hear the movement of small animals hunting and hiding among the molding wood and grass that has sprouted up through the old floor. The straight lines of the tall walls are no longer steady – instead their shape is organic, warped and knotted with plant life. They have become part of the landscape instead of on top of the land.

I love these buildings in particular because they remind me how temporary humanity is. There is no greater comfort than knowing that the buildings people erect will be gone – their inhabitants with them. Someday, with luck, these old barns will become soil. Termites and ants that have already whittled away at the planks will weaken the structure so much that weather and gravity will pull the walls down. Then the worms and grubs will get to work. Roots will wind their way in between rusted nails and delight in the nutrients the rotting structure provides. Perhaps a rich meadow will become a forest. Perhaps, with time, with luck, there will be no evidence that people had ever nailed a straight-lined shelter in that field.

I’ll admit that I want to build things. I want to make myself a home, a shelter for my family and I. I even want to build a barn for the horses I plan on rescuing someday. Straight lines are efficient for space even if they do not appeal to me. What I do know is that I need to build my world out of wood and sod and stone – things that can fall away when I have gone. I don’t want any of it to remain and remind the landscape that I was there. If anything I want what I build to be eaten down by the little creatures, the invertebrates, who balance everything through their persistence.

The same goes for these old barns built by Oregon settlers. Their legacy isn’t disappearing; it’s rotting away and becoming part of what it once was. In fact, because it can rot away, did it ever leave? I’d ask the sugar ants, the mice, the slugs! The idea of persistence and living beyond a lifetime is depressing – why do people need to leave things behind? And we do leave things behind – organic things, things that enjoin us in the cycle or rot and rebirth. What people ask for when they build out of poisonous material is that they want death to be their legacy. To disappear is to let life prevail.

And it’s true that the greatest gift a human can give to the world they live on it to leave nothing behind but molecules of carbon in the soil that fertilize the next generation of life.

Smell it in the decaying wood and rich soil, and hear it in the snap of the swallows’ wings as they hunt mosquitoes above your head.

Justice—what does it mean to you?

I feel somewhat at odds with the other people in my first year law class. My slight discomfort is because many of them are studying law solely in the pursuit of justice—or, as they define it to me, making things “ethically right” in the world. While a lofty goal (and I first considered law because of an injustice I was faced with in the workplace), I feel that pursuing justice for its own sake is a hopeless exercise. “Justice” is one of those words, like “love”, whose meaning is defined differently by everyone who uses it. It’s a feeling-word for many people, supported by the fact that they think it relates to some absolute ethical truth. Now, whether there is an absolute ethical truth is up for debate, but when it comes to the law, I think we can only strive towards what’s right and wrong in our own heads. A personal justice. To me, the law has very little to do with justice, though through the law we can manipulate what is viewed as “right” and “wrong” in our society. It’s an important distinction.

I see the law as being something that prevents our own basic humanity from destroying us—a buffer of sorts. Taking that a step further, law is also a medium for lasting (and immediate) change to a whole population. Laws change the course of history within one person’s lifetime—that power can either improve on basic humanity, or reward it. And while I would be willing to concede that my cynicism is due largely to my life experiences, I cannot shake the feeling that we are untrustworthy, selfish, shortsighted and narcissistic. Coming from a natural-science background, I recognize all of these traits as evolutionarily advantageous. However, I don’t think this is a common perception because it puts us on equal footing with other animals and plant life that are also governed by the natural order. The fact that we deny the equal value of all life leads to injustice. We need the law because we are brutes.

We make ourselves out to be superior, granting ourselves the right to destroy and deplete as we see fit. This is one reason I feel that law isn’t about doing what’s right—it’s about control and mediation, and shifting the human psyche towards self-awareness.

To me, studying law is a means to an end. It’s about communication. If one person is to change the world, perhaps even spark that shift in human psyche, they have to be able to connect and communicate. I think an enforceable medium, like the law, is ideal for this shift. And law school will also have the added advantage of opening up new lines of communication; a new language, a new view of how the world works. And on top of that I will gain the skills to become a kind of translator between two worlds: the world I am invested in both intellectually and emotionally, and human society as a whole. But no—I’m not idealistic. All I look forward to is the chance to be an effective translator. Maybe I can make individual lives better in the pursuit of justice, but justice in and of itself is not compatible with humanity as we are now (and have been).

I first became aware of these things when I was a child, helping my mother in the garden. I was lucky in so many ways, because my parents were always there to teach and explain how the world worked. In my childlike wonder, such information was better than anything else they could have offered me. I loved the outdoors and exploring the creatures and plants that inhabited it. At that young age my self-recognition was all wrapped up in the dirt and weather and my animal neighbors. And then I reached school age and discovered how cruel the human-animal was. Not only that, but I discovered that my own species did not live in the same earthy sphere that I did. Their world was one of plastic and packaged food that I did not understand. While I tried, as I think every child tries to fit in with their peers, the disconnect the other children had with the Earth was baffling to me. Even today I cannot comprehend a world where I didn’t know where things come from.

It’s in this way that I truly feel human—that what I don’t know is an invasion to me; base and undesirable.

If I were without monetary or time limitations, I’d protect the things that are good to me. In all likelihood this would mean buying up wilderness land for preservation around the world. The Nature Conservancy has the right idea in this one—political reform is great, but if you own the land your say over it is more persuasive. And it gives you time to make that necessary reform, another buffer within which the wilderness can be preserved. If I could funnel money into the educational system I think the positive impact worldwide would be great. With knowledge comes power—and its power with a focused purpose that would make the most difference.

Then there all the small things that feel huge to me—the ability I’d suddenly have to buy up land for the more selfish purpose of finally having a home I can breathe in. More than that—I want to start an equine rescue for older cast-offs. While depressing, because you always lose some, the day-to-day routine of care of disabled horses would keep me focused and inspired. There is nothing more rewarding than taking an emaciated old soul who has given their whole life and being to a person, only be tossed out like garbage, and bringing them back from that death. I love feeling the difference as flesh grows over knotted ribs. I love watching them eat comfortably again after years of having a mouth full of sores. The slow process of re-shaping abused feet and making it comfortable to stand again is rewarding. And there is joy in watching them as they play in the field with their friends—cantering through the arthritis and grooming each other with yellowed teeth—and knowing that you played some part. And finally, the light that comes back into their eyes when they forget what despair feels like. It’s a small happiness compared to saving the world, but there are few things sweeter in life.

And eventually—for again, the law is a means to an end—getting “justice” for the abuse these horses suffered. The same abuse that so many living things are dealt without due process. Making “justice” more than just an unfathomable ideal in the court of law. Giving it precedent that will change the course of the human view of the world. Speaking up for the creatures that have no voice in society, by manipulating what holds society together piece by piece. At some point it may not matter that humanity is brutish—an enforceable set of rules might be able to contain the worst of it. I’m not even sure I would need all the money and time in the world to achieve that. With help, and probably my entire lifetime, a difference can be made. Even if the things I love only last a minute more in time because of my efforts, it would be a life well spent. It will be an upstream swim, but the things I want to fight for more than deserve. And at the very least, I won’t have a moment of boredom!

I can tell law school is going to be a blast.

The most difficult of subjects: affirmative action.

I’m a white-folk. Among those I talk to of such things, the opinions on affirmative action vary widely. My personal opinion is something I have spent many years developing, and it is still in flux, as it were. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is notable in that it is one of the more diverse areas of California. While not “color blind” I’d say that cultural differences were something I noticed more than the tone of someone’s skin or the accent they had. It wouldn’t matter what the person’s racial identity was—if they were wearing Fubu and XXL jeans around their knees, I was wary of them. But when you are a kid and you see people of that ilk kicking cats and beating up your friends, there are some excuses for such reactions. While some might disagree, I see these cultural differences as being more malleable than someone’s race. They aren’t mutually exclusive, either.

That being said, while affirmative action has a noble purpose—considering race, gender and ethnicity in all sorts of situations to promote diversity and equal opportunities for everyone—I don’t think it has really been applied correctly in some situations. Now, as history tells us, white men have held the power in socioeconomic and economic situations since our country’s creation. Most people are going to agree that that’s just not right. And it’s not—other races have had a huge influence in developing this country into what it is today. And it was blatant racism to deny the kind of lifestyle white folks held to minorities just because of their ethnicity. Nowadays race is a hot issue (has it ever ceased being an issue?), but in a different sense from the past. We have to be careful about what we say to the point that I’m surprised more politicians don’t end up in loony bin. This is where affirmative action begins to hurt society. It creates a divide when it should be creating connections between all colors, genders and creeds.

I’m part of the younger up-and-coming generation, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard bitterness and rage from friends and co-workers because they were denied a job or scholarship because they were white. In many cases a racial minority was picked over them. In some of these situations they were equally qualified, but instead of a coin toss the minority always gets the ticket. Fine—it's all about making up for lost time, right? Sometimes my white friends were more qualified—and this is where they are really hurt. Not one of them thinks that those ethnicities that have been mistreated in the past shouldn’t get some help, but they also feel confusion and betrayal. I have one friend who married into a Latino family who tells me that her job searches have always been easy—they aren’t allowed to ask her race in the interview process, but she has been told flat-out that because she has her husband’s ethnic last name, she was chosen over other people. They say it makes them look good for affirmative action advocates in the government.

Some people have told me that white people should get a “taste of their own medicine”. That boggles my mind. I personally didn’t have slaves. I respect everyone to the best of my ability. By saying that I should suffer because of my race is just perpetuating a stereotype that need to be dead and buried after all these years. My parent’s families were not well-off, but I feel my parents themselves perpetuate the “American dream” by pulling themselves up by the boot-strings without outside help. It may be that my parents were given better job opportunities because they were white—I don’t know—but my father at least works in a very racially diverse field. My mother is an elementary school teacher.

To me, the real problem in economics. Some minority races have been shown to have a lower-than-average economic standing, and therefore often have access to poorer public schools and less money to fund education. Why not have affirmative action based on family income rather than someone’s race? If minorities are having difficulty getting money for college, or getting into college, it’s likely because they are in this lower economic bracket, and NOT because of their race. This way there is no racial profiling being done, but, hey look, minorities are still being helped out!

I have a white-friend who came from a lower economic bracket and struggled in college because he never had enough money. This is someone who got financial aid and whatever scholarships he could (for being a bright guy), but who also had to work several jobs during college and was dropped several times for non-payment because of issues with his financial aid approval. He’s white, he must have money stashed away somewhere! Meanwhile, non-whites from his home town (who were in the same economic bracket or higher) were skating through school with relative ease with full scholarships based on their race rather than academic merit. This white-friend struggled with the financial aspect of college, even though he was intelligent and very well qualified. Discounting the SAT completely, because I think it’s a load of trash, if colleges and grant funds had taken his economic standing into account, along with his grades, and discounted his race completely, I’m sure he would have gotten more money for school. If he had been African American I’m also sure he would have gotten close to a free-ride. Maybe he still would have had to work to pay his rent, but I bet he wouldn’t be sitting on 40k worth of student loan debt right now either. Ironically, his parents are both school teachers.

Also, though I feel I should hardly have to mention this, the education system needs an overhaul. It would benefit everyone, regardless of race or gender. I have no solutions but several ideas. I’m no expert on tax laws, so something would probably have to shift to put my ideas into practice but…Why not give good teachers incentives to work in impoverished areas? Or how about (oh the horror) paying public school teachers around the board a higher living wage in exchange for higher accountability? My junior high and high school years (don’t get me started on my elementary torture) were nightmares for me, in part because of just plain bad teachers. They disrespected me and made me feel like shit on a daily basis. I had one junior high teacher point at me in the middle of a science lab and tell the whole class that I was going to the next school shooter or serial killer because I was quiet (it’s called being shy, you dolt). Oh yeah, I was not one of the popular kids. But you see what I mean about greater accountability? I don’t care what school district you have, or how much money your parents bring in, teachers need to be screened, supported, and paid more to offset the higher standards. Make people who would make fantastic role models leave their snazzy business jobs because being a school teacher isn’t a thankless life. Quite frankly, coming from a family filled with teachers, you really have to love kids to not get embittered pretty quickly. Another side tangent: enough with the bloody worksheets! All that teaches kids is that school is and work are perpetually boring.

But back to Affirmative Action: yes, people as a whole need to recognize this countries past as it influences our present. This is the basis for concept behind this movement and these laws—the “making up” for lost time for those groups that have been wronged. How about we recognize that the only way to truly move forward is to unlock economic and social fences everywhere, instead of just giving choice individuals a leg up. It’s still true that if you teach a man to fish, he will do a whole lot better than if you just give him one you caught for an apologetic gift.

I don’t think that means what you think it means…

Selfish.

Again with the name calling! Again I have been called selfish, and not for the reasons I would normally associate with the word. For instance, I like money. If I got to have money and the other guy didn’t, that would make me happy—and selfish of course. But no, apparently I’m “selfish, inhuman, cold” because I don’t want children. At no point in these thought provoking conversations to I mention that I hate children, I want them all to die, that I’ll break their fingers. Unbeknownst to me, all of that seems to come wrapped up in the phrase “I don’t want children”. It’s a stretch, but being called “cold” and “inhuman” is something that I can wrap my mind around. Sort of. The “cold” comes from being a woman with great child-bearing hips and a tendency to rescue every animal or plant I see—but avoids babies and children. I should be crazy about children because I have a uterus? “Inhuman” probably relates (enlighten me if you know) to the fact that I don’t have this particular human urge to reproduce. Or perhaps it ties into religious reason for some people—I certainly fail to “go forth and multiply”. The thing is, part of my reasoning behind refusing to reproduce is because the rest of humanity does quite enough multiplying.

I don’t see the selfish though. I pulled up the definition online because my paper dictionary is packed away:

self⋅ish
–adjective
1. Devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. Characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
Synonyms:
1. self-interested, self-seeking, egoistic; illiberal, parsimonious, stingy.

Looking at the simple definition, I can’t help but feel that I’m not the selfish one. That fetus (in most cases) doesn’t exist yet—these baby-mongers are thinking about only their own desire to have a child. If they choose to throw motives at me like “I don’t want the human race to die out” I find myself infected with giggles. Really? The fact that you're fertile means you are the savior of humankind? Having a child is not a miracle. It’s biology. Not to mention the fact that humankind is going to out-breed our little planet. We are like lemmings—burdening our environment until a mass-killing is needed to equalize the overpopulation. People don’t think about how much having a child impacts the world. If you consider yourself an environmentalist, or against war, or poverty and hunger, then you would be wise to consider the impact your fertility has on the planet.

I don’t pretend to understand the urge to be pregnant and carry a child to term. I also don’t understand why people take fertility drugs and spends thousands of dollars just so they can be swollen for nine months. I’ve heard a rumor from a friend that worked as an adoption agency counselor that some of those people who go the fertility-drug rout, were denied a child. Usually the denial was based on mental problems. Ominous isn’t it? At any rate, adoption is environmentally sound. So is using contraception or, even better, being sterilized. Each abortion lessen the negative impact that little fetus will have on the planet someday.

So how is this selfish?

I’m not “devoted to or caring only for oneself”—I’m thinking about how everything I do impacts the Earth I love, including humanity itself. If people stopped breeding and our population decreased by ¾ or more within the next hundred years we could probably salvage what’s left of Earth. But that’s just me being overly positive. I think the childfree get a bad reputation in part because having children does free up some of our resources and we can supposedly spend more of our money on luxury items. Of course, most of the childfree people I know, while they appreciate this fact, are not the rich people in the world. I think what we value more than the extra money is the extra time and ability to just drop things and go. Of course, quite a few childfree just can’t handle the strange sounds and smells that come from babies, and could care less about the economical and environmental benefits. On the other hand, if having children is a choice (and it is), then people with children choose to live with a rigid schedule and little spending money. If they are trying to convince me that it isn't a choice so that they reason out why they had children in the first place, then I feel very sad for them.

For me it is a mixture of the environmental cause and the fact that babies just plain make me uncomfortable in a way that turns my stomach and makes me gag. It would be selfish of me to have a child, not thinking about how damaged it would be by knowing that its mother was disgusted by it. And children always know. It would be selfish of you to thrust your baby into my arms, knowing very well how far I want to stay away. Luckily I can muster the feeling that even maggots are “cute” in some sense, so when I tell glowing mothers as much I am not lying. In reality the childfree community gripes more about bad parents—which to us are people who should have never reproduced for one reason or another—then we do bratty kids. Just as good pet owners will gripe about the bad.

Not having children isn’t being selfish, folks. It’s being sensible.