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.

How your sexuality can help—the short version.

And then it hit me.

There is a lot of debate on whether or not there is a “gay gene”. I think it’s important to question why we are even looking for said gene—would it become something we could test amniotic fluid for, and to what end? Would babies with a predisposition towards homosexuality find themselves unwanted or aborted by some families? Would genetic therapy take place instead of bible-camps? Would homosexuals use such biological “proof” to their own end, throwing it in the faces of the fundies who have argued that no one is born gay? And then there is the indication that while there is a genetic predisposition (in lab mice, mind, where most of this research is being done), there are still environmental factors that contribute to different ends. Still, like many things that can be tested for in-utero, being gay has always been a matter of degree. Would you abort a child if it was shown to be autistic, knowing very well that high-functioning autistics do quite well in society? There is that fear that revealing such a gene would put homosexuality on the same level as very real disabilities and diseases—I certainly have that concern.

On the other hand I say “go ahead!” As science and technology develops we become more able to map and construct the genes of future generations. Instead of discarding gay-embryos, I think we should use them. In fact, if we can manage it, I think at least half of the next generation should be gay. Give the embryo soup that predisposition and put the resulting fetuses into situations that will help them along their genetic destiny! Why? Having a largely-homosexual human population will save the world.

Overpopulation is the key to most of the Earth’s problems right now. It is ridiculous how breeding is still seen as something necessary for the continuation of the human race by individuals—do they actually think that is they don’t squeeze out babies, no one else will? Our worldwide problems with pollution, resource scarcity and poverty could be solved by halving or even cutting down the worldwide population to a quarter of what it is today. Mass murder is a rather messy way to go about saving the world, so I’m rallying for homosexuality to be encouraged and selected for in the human gene pool. If 50% or more of the people on Earth were gay, there would be a whole lot less breeding. On top of that, with the re-working of the adoption system, I think we could solve the crisis of unwanted children in the States at the very least. Think about it: fewer children are born, which leads to an overall population decline, which in turn leads to a healthier planet for every living thing. We could truly follow the maxim of “it takes a village to raise a child”. And wouldn’t that be amazing! One or two children for every ten adults would mean they are surrounded with a support system that doesn’t exist today. A child would have exposure to many different points of view, ways of living, professions and cultures. Such a child would stand in where there had once been ten uncivilized brats. In this vision I have, the future is bright. Heck, even though I don’t like kids, I would love to be part of a system where children are brought up and nurtured by the “village”. We shouldn’t be breeding so that we replace our current population—our 6.77 billion bodies are not sustainable. Even if we did everything right and recycled, drove hybrids, and used solar power, our very need to eat and have shelter would suck the life out of the Earth.

Of course, certain things would have to change. Gay marriage would need to be legal in every sense of the law (and seriously, I have yet to hear a competent argument against that. Separation of church and state, right?). As I mentioned, the adoption system would have to be re-worked—because why is it that a teenage couple can pop out three children before they are allowed to drink alcohol, but a well-adjusted couple can’t adopt a baby? And of course, gays would have to contend with no longer being special or unusual. Sexuality would become unimportant to society as a whole—nothing to be bothered with as long as those people who are still breeding are having gay children. It would be something valuable to individual identity, not something to be feared or denounced on public radio. Because really, the typical biological urge lead us to want mates, not to carry children ourselves (I know there are individuals with those desires—I’m just arguing it’s unusual). With a 50/50 spread of straight versus homosexual persons, developed over a manner of years, the world population would steadily decline and remain more-or-less constant. We could actually develop technologies that would help our ailing environment without having to re-calculate for our own snow-balling population.

I’m tempted to make a bumper-sticker that reads: “Be homosexual. Save the world.”

But maybe I would need to put it into better context than that. I'd rather not have my car keyed.

Anything you can do, slugs can do better.

I’ve always loved gastropods. When I was a child I would rescue snails from the wrath of gardeners. After sticking numbers on their shells I released them back into the “wild”. Of course, I did this only after I had made notes and measurements of their coloration, size and behavior. Then I would regularly sweep the garden to re-capture the snails by checking at the base of iris plants, inside discarded pottery, and underneath the wide squash leaves. Any snail that had a numbered shell would be spared the wrath of my parents (they assured me) when they were doing the weeding. As the snails would turn up again I would keep track of them by their numbers—I suppose I was a budding researcher. If you didn’t know me it would seem odd that I am going into law.

Anyway, I think the most popular group of these soft-bodied wonders are the nudibranch. Colloquially they are called “sea slugs”, though that classification isn’t perfect, as there are several other groups apart from the nudibranch that are called sea slugs. The nudibranches are usually brightly colored, often toxic, and often have a beautiful frond-like appearance. They are like flamboyant ghosts that glide along the sea bottom, eating as they go. But all species of “sea slug”, are fascinating. One in particular—Elysia chlorotica—takes fascinating to the next level.

Elysia chlorotica (a beautiful name, really) is a photosynthetic animal. Quite an uncommon thing in the animal world, but an admirable one. Sea slugs support several species that utilize the sunlight in some way to get energy—usually by using the chloroplasts of the algae they ingest in some form. Studies done on E. chlorotica show that it does “steal” the chloroplasts, lining its gut cells with them. Chloroplasts, similar in some ways to an animal cell’s mitochondria, are the power-houses of the plant cell. They can take light-energy and convert it to sugar-energy. What’s interesting is that the chloroplasts alone do not have the genetic information to complete photosynthesis—the DNA for that resides in the nucleus of the plant cell. Scientists knew that E. chlorotica was using photosynthesis, so it must have some kind of genetic means to. When they looked further they found that the algae DNA for photosynthesis had been incorporated into the slug’s own DNA, allowing the proper proteins to be made to keep the chloroplast factories working.

There is no clear evidence on how E. chlorotica incorporates DNA from its food into its own cells—it’s a process undescribed by human science. DNA can jump between species—we’ve seen it before—but this slug’s ability to make the alien DNA function, and use it for some clear means, is unique. Some other animals can use sunlight for energy, but always by using the entire plant cell, not just the relevant stolen DNA. They can make the proteins required to keep converting sunlight to energy.

And what are the implications? My first thought is that I would love to be a green-skinned person. I wouldn’t want to give up my ability to ingest food (and as a warm-blooded animal with high energy demands, that would be ill-advised), but if I could use photosynthesis to my advantage I would be thrilled. No more blood sugar crashes as long as I can go outside. My pale, easily-burned skin would be replaced by a nice organic shade of green.

Or, getting into the hot-topic of genetically modified food, what about chickens that have plant-derived protein? You could eat a fried egg and get plant nutrients. As cattle graze, they could be getting even fatter on energy derived from the sun.

These discoveries were all very recent. For me the message is clear—there is so much Earth has to offer us still as far as knowledge and relevant life processes. We are still discovering new species every month; new species that could potentially hold keys to our own biology, or the environmental crisis we are facing. Ironically, our destruction of areas whose diversity we can only guess at is also annihilating species as amazing as E. chlorotica.

Forget the awesome potential for green skin—what if we’re killing off the species that will help us cure cancer? Or develop technologies to re-grow appendages? Or provide nutrients to third-world countries at a nominal cost? Considering how many species we lose each month we probably are killing off species that could lead us to such things. We could be changing a whole host of miserable social issues if we only put protecting the world we must share as our first priority.

Recently in the news it has been noted that human kind is the leading cause of the greatest mass-extinction Earth has ever experienced. Save the Earth. If not for the potential to photosynthesize lunch as you hang out on the beach, do it because you’re a selfish bastard and care only about human welfare.

Check out this and this for more information on "solar-powered sea slugs".

Spotted Hyena Society

We can learn from Crocuta crocuta—the spotted hyena.

These animals have fascinated me for a long time. Images from The Lion King aside, the spotted hyena’s pack structure and social organization is something unusual among mammals. From all appearances the females are indiscernible from the males—and this similarity goes right down to their genitals. And yes, even if you were able to lift their skirts and check their goods, female hyenas could be mistaken as a males. Looks can be deceiving: female spotted hyenas have fused labia that resemble a scrotum and testes, and their clitoris is elongated and fully erectile so that it is nearly the size of the male’s penis. What’s even more amazing (to me!) is that these females are fully functional as females—they mate and give birth through this pseudo-penis. This relates to a higher rate of still-born, as cubs suffocate in the long birth canal if their umbilical cord is not long enough. There is also the danger, especially for first time mothers, that their pseudo-penis just won’t stretch wide enough.
We may never know why this species took this particular evolutionary path, but that doesn’t make them any less intriguing. The female masculinization, and it’s consequences in female society can tell us a lot about our own sexual and cultural roots by comparison.

Among spotted hyenas, the females are dominant.

True, the females are larger and more bad-ass, so they can bully their way into kills if need be. But in observation this isn’t always true—males will give up a kill when a dominant female arrives without a fight. Whether the differences in size and genital morphology developed together or separately, it seems plausible that there is a sexual explanation behind the female’s dominance.

Most notable is that female spotted hyenas have complete sexual control—a rare thing among mammal species. What is more common is to find a male in control, because, even if he isn’t more physically powerful, he has an advantage simply because a penis can always trump a vagina. With the spotted hyena, the female cannot be an unwilling participant. With that set of paired genitals, mating is a more tenuous process as the pseudo-penis has to roll up to make anything possible. For the male to be successful the female must allow him to be—even if he were able to force her into submission, her form itself would thwart him.

Typically, whoever controls the sexual power in social groups controls all the advantages of being dominant. We see this particularly in other social mammal groups where the male is typically dominant over a harem or group. Obvious sexual dimorphism (such as size) is usually directly related to the difference in sex roles—the more a male has to compete for the opportunity for mating, the more he will usually be larger and more powerful than the female. Their morphology—our morphology—lends itself to patriarchal society. The spotted hyena morphology lends itself to a female dominated society. If females can always be forced into sex, than the only thing that males have to worry about is competition from their own sex. Even among humans this difference is paramount. While there is strong evidence that humans are becoming less and less dimorphic and therefore more monogamous, males can still force females into sex. The simple fact that rape is possible precludes men towards having more sexual power.

Biologically, the ability for a male to have more sexual power isn’t an unsound way of going about things. If the male has the power and has to compete for mates, than physically sound males have a higher chance of passing their genes onto multiple offspring. Even among monogamous species this seems to hold true—the more “fit” a male is, the more likely he is able to keep his mate and foster offspring to adulthood. Polygamy works well too because one male is able to procreate with many females.

However, spotted hyena society also works incredibly well in practice. They are a very successful species for many reasons—not least because they are able to digest bone matter that other carnivores cannot. They are also incredible social hunters and not just scavengers as they are portrayed by the media. And yet, the women lead. There is a dominant female in a group and a ranking hierarchy in which females generally are more dominant over any given male. The dominant female gets her choice of mates, her choice of food, her nicest places to den, and other benefits that would normally go to the ranking male in another species group. There is still a remarkable amount of cooperation that goes on among these hyena groups, such as close mother-daughter bonding. Their life cycle from birth to adulthood can be harsh because the birthing process (they have to push a cub through that pseudo-penis) is difficult and there is a lot of sibling competition. One thing is clear to me: the spotted hyenas are at no selection disadvantage because of how they operate. In the respect of genetic diversity I imagine they are better off—if females are more likely to mate with different males than their sisters hyena groups as a whole will be more diverse. Perhaps this is one reason the spotted hyena has flourished where many of the other large African predators have not.

It could be possible that the spotted hyenas interesting morphology could have been selected for because the females started acting dominant. With the more dominant female, more masculine hormones were selected for (masculine hormones preclude greater size, dimorphism, erectile tissue, etc.—they are considered “male” hormones because of this, even though all females have them), and the more their pseudo-penises grew. Similar to any type of sexual selection, perhaps once the females morphology began to change it became possible for her to be even more dominant because she now had sexual power. It is of note that only spotted hyenas have this social and morphological difference.

Human society could take a lesson from this: we may not be able to change your gender, sex or genitals, but at least we can understand the biological implications they have on our social interactions. I’d be all for a society in which women have dominance—remember the Amazon warrior women? I think it could still work very well even if we don’t have pseudo-penises. Society could match our sexual powers even if our biology can’t. It could, but will it? The gender roles that were in place at our beginnings may have changed, but essentially men still have the sexual power and therefore the power over how society runs. Spotted hyena females have the advantage of their morphology to take sexual charge. For humans to equalize gender roles and power, human men, along with the women, would have to be conscious and incite such change with that purpose in mind. This isn’t on the individual scale that I’m speaking of, but as society or micro-cultures as a whole. Individually progressive and socially regressive isn’t going to work!

Unfortunately that’s another depressing truth about humankind—we brag about our potential to rise above our biology, but that potential is ever realized. Maybe our only ability that sets us apart from the non-humans is to brag about things we will never do.

Personally, I’m rooting for the spotted hyena.

Tugging the Teat

I got in the milk argument today.

Dairy cows often have better lives than cattle destined for slaughter. The picturesque scene of cows eating green grass under a bright blue Californian sun is a myth, but they do at least get fed more naturally than feedlot cattle, and get to spend more time being bovines. I am always going to be in favor of situations that allow a production animal to live a life that allows for all of their natural behaviors. Dairy cows come closer to this ideal than feedlot cattle – which I have always been against. In my animal science studies at University of California Davis I got to spend several months at the dairy barn learning the ins and outs of the milk production process. It was interesting. And it was fun. And it was disturbing. Humans are addicted to their milk, but very few have any idea of how it is processed before it gets into that carton they pull off their superstore shelf.

I don't drink milk. If I could say I don't drink milk purely on principle, I would, but the honest truth is that I was allergic to milk as a child. I would break out in a rash every time I ate dairy products and so I avoided dairy products. Milk is something that you have to acquire a taste for – as a child who never drank milk, the taste of dairy products like milk and ice cream are repulsive to me. I do like cheese, though my tastes run towards the well-aged salty cheeses or sheep and goat milk cheeses. Ironically I could eat cheese as a child because it has already been partially digested by the bacteria and I reacted less to it. I have a strong suspicion that it wasn't the milk itself I was allergic to, but the chemicals and additives put in milk to pasteurize and clean it. Because I grew up in such an organic home-grown type of household my digestive system cannot tolerate foreign chemicals and hormones in my food. Feedlot meat makes me ill. But I can eat a huge beef hamburger of high-quality grass-fed free-range meat and feet great. It disturbs me that people not only acquire a taste for these artificial additives to their milk and meat, but that they sometimes prefer it. Like MSG (something else that makes me sick), to some people it just tastes good, even though it is an awful thing to put in your body.

When it comes to dairy milk I am baffled by people's need to drink it. There is no proof that it helps children grow faster or stronger (I have never broken a bone), and quite a bit of proof that milk is not easily digested or used by the human body. Could people be confusing the importance of a child getting his mother's milk with continuing to drink milk through childhood?

Some that are against the use of dairy cows will also mention that their calves often go to slaughter (veal is a popular option). Sometimes the female calves are kept as replacements on a dairy farm of course, but by in large this is true. I always loved spending time with the calves at the dairy barn. Had I known that they were going to meat, but in the meantime they would get to live as bovines should with room to move and ruminate and be free from chemicals I would not have been sad at their parting. The knowledge that they might be put into a feedlot type setting disgusted me. Luckily most of the UCD calves were kept in fields on the periphery of the university where they could live decent bovine lives until slaughtered. No animal should have to live in conditions like those found in a feedlot. And I certainly don't want to eat an animal that has lived in those conditions!

My general argument is this: eat what you will, but know where it comes from. Know that your food choices may be polluting the environment and your body. Know that your choices contribute to the suffering of another sentient being. If you know where it comes from and it is someplace like a feedlot or an industrialized dairy farm, then ask yourself why it's okay to make these animals suffer so that you can have a luxury (we don't need beef or milk).

And if you don't care because you feel that animals are less important than you as a human being, then I recommend you open your eyes. The cattle we eat and the milk we drink comes from beings as emotionally complicated as any human.

What makes humans better?

I’m sick of hearing that animals can’t have rights because you like to eat them.

I have nothing against animals being eaten—humans are omnivores and are built to consume animal protein as well as a variety of other foods. What bothers me is the lack of respect for the non-human animals we keep. If anyone has seen cattle feedlots or the animals that are abused and neglected as property you know what I mean.

What is this “right” that humans intrinsically have over non-humans? I used the dictionary to clarify my terms:

Right
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English riht, from riht, adjective
Date: before 12th century
1: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval

2: something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1): the interest that one has in a piece of property —often used in plural (2)plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature

3: something that one may properly claim as due

4: the cause of truth or justice

Let’s put each of these definitions into context. The first definition relates to phrases like “you’re right”, as in I’m correct. With no situational context given to us it’s hard to determine moral rightness. In fact, even if we did have a situation, could we really label actions that a human does as “right” outside of the laws our species imposes on us? To do the opposite and impose ideas of moral rightness on a non-human who does not share our society or concerns is anthropomorphism—the giving of human qualities to a non-human animal or vice versa (a Disney animal is anthropomorphized because it can talk, for example).

The second definition is similar, but relates to entitlement. For instance: “in the United States I have the right of freedom of speech”. Good for me! But the definition goes deeper than that by indicating that the claim must be just. Once again there is a moral stint to this word. Now what just claims does an animal have? In human society, as a human, they would have certain rights. Even the mentally retarded have some rights in some societies, so a non-human's supposed lesser intelligence cannot be what sets them apart. What sets them apart is simply that they are not human. I have no problem with this perception because I think that anthropomorphizing non-human animals does them a great disservice. What I have a problem with is the idea that not human somehow means that they have no inherent rights.

The last two definitions are variations on the theme. But I would like to point out something interesting about the wording in the third definition: “Something that one may properly claim as due”. I think this is where you could argue that non-human animals don’t have rights—it’s because they can’t properly claim their dues, because, of course, they can’t speak human. I would argue against that by saying that non-human animals have a lot to tell us in their own ways, but most humans do not bother to notice. And how can they? The animals they see are wrapped in cellophane long before they are grilled and washed down with cold beer. Or they live in our houses, with us, as pets. And pets have been domesticated—they have adapted to living with humans—so the gap in communication should be even less. But is it? There is strong evidence that our domesticated animals have evolved means to communicate better with their humans— for instance both dogs and cats have become more vocal then their wild counterparts. I think we have the means inside us to communicate more intimately with animals, especially with our domesticated partners, but social standards prevent most of us from doing so. It’s the idea that they are somehow less important, with no natural rights, that seems to lead people to this conclusion. Non-human equals no rights. Its how Western culture has raised us (I can’t speak for cultures I don’t belong to, but from what I’ve seen and hear this is a culturally universal trait).

So why don’t animals get respect? Why does abuse and neglect happen and go unpunished? Why do we use non-human animals like they are things? Go ahead and argue that humans have to look out for their own—I will counter right back and say that, if that’s true, then why are we better than non-humans? If that was the case then we are selfish, shortsighted, and blind to the world around us. I have heard these traits attached to non-humans as a reason that they are not better than us. And honestly, can we even attach these traits to anyone without knowing them and their motives?

The argument that they are less intelligent is also faulty. The mentally retarded are less intelligent and human-centric folks will still argue that they have as much value as an intelligent individual. Also—we are anthropomorphizing again when we say they are less intelligent. Yes, you can argue that they have less of the human-type of intelligence. Good for them! But I bet I don’t have any wolf-intelligence or centipede-intelligence. There are quite a few things that these species excel at that I haven’t a hope of puzzling through even with my huge brain. I could even bring in example of non-humans that DO seem to have a type of intelligence comparable to a human. I knew someone with a scarlet macaw who could not only speak English, but knew a supposition from a noun from a verb. He would correct or puzzle over the way this woman’s six year old stepdaughter spoke because she wasn’t very proper. How did he learn this? His owner was an English teacher and writer, who would read her work out to him and self-correct things out loud. He was a fast learner. He also could differentiate himself from the crowd (I think all mammals and birds, at the very least, can do this). Once, while his owner was cooking he asked “Sammy help stir?” and when his owner approved he flew down to help stir the pasta with his beak. So Sammy could bridge the gap, and that’s amazing. But non-human animals are bridging that gap all the time and most people aren’t aware of it.

I personally know that non-human bird and mammals at least (I don’t have in depth experience with other groups) are more complex emotionally than any human.

But it shouldn’t be an issue of who is better in any respect. Every species, every individual, has their strengths and their weaknesses. Who should have intrinsic rights? Every individual—no matter what race, religion, gender or species should have the ability to live well. And by living well I don’t mean not being eaten—that’s a natural life process. What I do mean is that you should have the ability to fight or flee when the threat of being eaten is upon you. Or have land to roam and unpolluted greens to eat. Basically to live within you realm of choices, and have your realm of choices include what’s natural for you. A house cat will probably want to live in a house and be fed two meals a day. Sammy, the scarlet macaw, was born and raised in captivity. But because macaws are not domesticated, if he had been born in the wild his forest home may have been natural for him. He might have flourished there but been devastated if captured to be a pet. There are so many situations that we impose on non-humans that they can’t adapt too. A wolf cannot live in a cage and eat cellophane-meat. His choices in that situation do not include what is natural. And natural is good.

I understand non-humans in a way: I don’t live within a sphere that’s natural for me. But I DO have the choice to pursue what is good for me. It’s a struggle, and who knows if I will get their in the end, but at least I have the right.

Human senses, and what's nonsensical.

I was wondering the other day if everyone has a particular dislike for a sound, sight, feeling, taste or smell. Do they know what their dislike is and is it ingrained in their genetics or part of their history? Do all humans have an aversion to certain experiences?

Everyone dislikes certain foods, so it’s easy to assume that taste is the sense that is easily defined under the qualifications of “good” and “bad”. Smell is related to taste. You can assume that if something smells rancid, it is going to taste rancid. Logically we can assume that all humans have a dislike for smells or tastes of things that are not good for us to eat. Evolutionarily this would be a very good idea! Of course, there are certain things I loathe to smell or taste that other people seem more than willing to. Cigar or joint smoke, for one, makes me want to hurl. And yet I like the smell of turpentine. This interest me because it begs the question—do I not like smokers or smoking because the smell disgusts me? Or do I have an aversion to the smell because I dislike smoking? Perhaps I even enjoy the smell of turpentine because I associate it with painting.

And what about sounds? Is there a sound that has a universal reaction of dislike or fear from humans? For me it’s babies. I can’t stand the sounds they make—and this includes their bubbling and their laughter, not just their screaming. When a baby cries I expect they are being so irritating because they want someone to soothe them right away, and mothers that soothed their children instead of killing them (like I probably would) would be more likely to pass on their genes. I doubt I could conclude that a baby screaming is found as universally disgusting because of this.

Evolutionarily you might expect ancestral humans to find the sound of a predator snarling frightening. To me the snarling would be frightening only if I thought it was going to lead to pain—it’s only a method of communication to me and I’m not afraid of it at all. The counterargument of that is that babies are also communicating when they “talk” (how could their noises ever be considered “talking”?); to me a snarl is much more effective than blowing spit bubbles.

It also makes my skin crawl to see a baby’s pink wet mouth and sausage-limbs waving, so there is a clear overlap in my sense-dislike there. Thankfully I’ve only had the bad luck to hold a baby once, but my impression was the same: disgust.

Again, there is a discord between what I find disgusting and what the majority of humanity find disgusting. I enjoy looking at spiders and have no problem with snakes (in fact I love both groups!), but human children make me want to run away and hide.

In conclusion? Babies are gross. Oh, and I don’t think sense-dislike is universal, though I could see such things being a bell curve. Unless we are talking about claustrophobia I’d probably be on the extreme ends of that bell curve.

The Human Problem

I have a serious problem with humanity. It is a problem that I feel we all have, and need to fix if we want to survive ourselves. I recognize that writing this will label me as a hypocrite in many eyes—no less because I enjoy my indoor plumbing and gas stove. Over my limited years of life I have made many observations of how people work and operate in their world and out of it. The conclusions I have come to are not always well-formed or complete thoughts, but they are conclusions just the same. I’m going to make an argument that humans aren’t natural, because we have severed our ties with nature.

Bear with me. Think on these things yourself. If you think I am wrong, argue your case.

My first observation: we don’t know where anything comes from anymore. The children I have taught don’t know where that steak they had for dinner came from, they don’t know where the water comes from when they turn on the hose, or the textbooks they lug to school each day. What is more horrifying is that they don’t care.

Why has nature become something that we have to drive to? At what point did humanity become separate from the natural world, and why would this be desirable?

I think the root is in the fact that history has set us up this way. If Anthropology 101 taught me anything, it was that agriculture drastically changed the course of human culture. Before agriculture was popularized we were hunter-gatherers. There were not many of us (limited food meant a finite number of children survived) but all fossil indications point to a robust and healthy kind of man. As an aside, the remains of hunter-gather women have been found with injuries likely sustained in hunts. This kind of lifestyle was difficult but rewarding—we still existed within in the natural law and those individuals who were fit were more likely to produce young.

With the advent of agriculture we started living in large stationary groups and our population burgeoned with the increased but unvaried food supply. When people aren’t starving more tend to survive, even if said children aren’t fit, because such a society allows for radical specialization of talents.

Allow me to postulate with the help of an example: a family of agricultural people lives with several other family groups—their large groups size becoming more of a necessity as more people need to be fed and protected from bands of other people trying to steal their goods. With this stationary lifestyle, the “town” begins to evolve. Women, who are not useful to work in the fields while pregnant, begin to take on more responsibility towards the children, sick and old. The divide between genders widens. Because the old and the crippled are more likely to live now that their caretakers have the time and the advantage of not being on the move, they can contribute to caring for the young even more, so even the sick survive to breed.

However (fossil evidence supports this) because of agriculture, people are now eating one or two types of food instead of the varied diet they had as hunter-gatherers. Physiologically, humans are built for that varied diet of plants and meat, and they suffer under the new diet. Bone density goes down, illness and plague run rampant (also a symptom people living in close proximity), and everyone is generally more unhealthy. Still, there is plenty of food to go around, and they continue to breed despite being far unhealthier than their hunter-gatherer counterparts. In the end they out-compete the hunter-gatherers because there are more of them.

This sets the stage for the rest of human history. Even in situations where there weren’t “more” of us, we steamroller everything because our technology gives us power beyond ourselves. The natural population controls are fought against. The advent of war, which came hand-in-hand with agriculture (we had territory to defend), is a bloody compromise.

Repeat this pattern throughout the years and eventually humans are able to separate themselves from their natural roots, at least in an illusionary sense. Today we don’t even have to watch the weather as it pertains to our crops. Agriculture has been evolving too, and we have been moving away from the natural order as we follow it. This drive is fueled by the need to fuel our biomass, which continues to grow.

Agriculture was a step back from nature because, to a certain degree, we protected ourselves from the ebb and flow of natural patterns by being able to store food and protect ourselves with our numbers. As hunter-gatherers, our adaptation to this would have been to be nomadic and dynamic to the natural fluxes—and yes, people would have died. But death is part of the natural order.

In conclusion, this process has drawn us away from our ties with the land. Through technology and advanced farming techniques the land has become something we farm, something we live on, not with. Our fear of global warming is warranted, because we fear things bigger than ourselves (perhaps another explanation for the population surge?). I don’t think it is a fear or horror at what we might have done—the responsibility lies with a faceless other and not individuals to most of us. I think this is another symptom of our separation that we cannot recognize how everything we do affects the world around us. Multiply that by six billion? Well, I’m sure you can guess where my thoughts on that lie. In a hunter-gatherer society, such selfish and unnatural ways of living would have killed you outright. Today, the consequences are the same, but drawn out over a longer period. The stakes are higher though, because now we are destroying the livelihood of every other living thing on Earth.

But, as one of the children I taught said (with a smile on his face): “I want to go out with a bang!”

He was the one whose parents packed him pre-cut-and-packaged apples in his lunch. He didn't even eat them.