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.

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.