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.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Thanks, but no thanks.
My biological clock isn’t broken. In fact, I’ve been wanting the unthinkable lately. I have the urge to cuddle a drooling, pooping, child. One from which strange smells emanate. Something that will grow like a weed, destroy my possessions, throw food on the floor, and howl for no reason (and at odd hours of the night). I’ll have to dedicate most of my energy to raising it right—but that’s okay!—my maternal instinct must be heard.
Yes, I’d really like a puppy.
I know I’d be a good puppy-mom. There would be the required training (no dog of mine is going to be spoiled); it would get plenty of exercise and the best of diets. Given, of course, that my life situation was radically different than it is today. I refuse to indulge my puppy-cravings when I am unemployed and living in a tiny one bedroom apartment with a guy who is not crazy about the idea of any new pets. I’m sensible, I suppose. Or maybe I just like the idea of having my future pets be healthy, happy, well adjusted individuals who don't rely on me for their emotional well-being!
And I’m still completely baffled by people that have children when they can’t afford to keep them. Why is a pregnancy “always welcome” when someone is unemployed, leeching of friends and family, and stressed beyond belief? Yes, I understand that these people think that they are carrying a complete individual human and that is special to them. Even more, I think these people see only the fantasy world called “parenthood”, and ignore the facts. I can’t ignore the facts—even if I liked children, which I don’t, parenthood wouldn’t be "special" to me. There would have to be a reason behind having a child, and I can’t think of a good one besides "I want one". And really, why do childfree people get pegged as the selfish ones if parents are using that reasoning?
Having a dog, however, makes more sense to me because I’m not naïve of my selfish desire to have others worship me. I’m really a cat person. I sympathize with kitty’s “get out of m’face” attitude, because it’s one I share. Dogs on the other hand are all about loyalty and love. It’s the part of the pack mentality humans haven’t quite perfected. You pour you energy into a puppy, and it pours love, adoration and hero-worship right back at you. Part of me still believes that people have children because they are looking the same kind of trust and adoration from their children. There is a difference of course—any parent that has kids with that in mind shouldn’t even have a dog. These parents are the ones that spoil their kids and are heartbroken when the brat rejects them. They would also spoil a puppy, only to discard it (because it’s just an ‘animal’) when its behavior becomes intolerable. Even if they caused the behavior by never training the poor thing. They never gave it boundaries, which in turn often leads to a dog that isn’t confident and trusting in its own right.
Yes, dogs are a lot like humans. I think having a puppy is analogous in many ways to having a human child. The difference is that they are not human—they are our oldest domesticated partners. We are their pack, and with any good pack relationship there needs to be a leader. People that treat their children as they should a dog—training, positive reinforcement, strict boundaries, and unconditional love—are good parents in my sensibilities.
I still think that the reward compared to the amount of energy invested is much higher for those that choose dogs over human babies. But then again, I’m childfree and always have been. And always will be. As for a puppy? Given time, graduation from law school, and enough money to live in a place where my horses can roam and I have space to exercise a dog..?
I think I’m going to get a Doberman.
Yes, I’d really like a puppy.
I know I’d be a good puppy-mom. There would be the required training (no dog of mine is going to be spoiled); it would get plenty of exercise and the best of diets. Given, of course, that my life situation was radically different than it is today. I refuse to indulge my puppy-cravings when I am unemployed and living in a tiny one bedroom apartment with a guy who is not crazy about the idea of any new pets. I’m sensible, I suppose. Or maybe I just like the idea of having my future pets be healthy, happy, well adjusted individuals who don't rely on me for their emotional well-being!
And I’m still completely baffled by people that have children when they can’t afford to keep them. Why is a pregnancy “always welcome” when someone is unemployed, leeching of friends and family, and stressed beyond belief? Yes, I understand that these people think that they are carrying a complete individual human and that is special to them. Even more, I think these people see only the fantasy world called “parenthood”, and ignore the facts. I can’t ignore the facts—even if I liked children, which I don’t, parenthood wouldn’t be "special" to me. There would have to be a reason behind having a child, and I can’t think of a good one besides "I want one". And really, why do childfree people get pegged as the selfish ones if parents are using that reasoning?
Having a dog, however, makes more sense to me because I’m not naïve of my selfish desire to have others worship me. I’m really a cat person. I sympathize with kitty’s “get out of m’face” attitude, because it’s one I share. Dogs on the other hand are all about loyalty and love. It’s the part of the pack mentality humans haven’t quite perfected. You pour you energy into a puppy, and it pours love, adoration and hero-worship right back at you. Part of me still believes that people have children because they are looking the same kind of trust and adoration from their children. There is a difference of course—any parent that has kids with that in mind shouldn’t even have a dog. These parents are the ones that spoil their kids and are heartbroken when the brat rejects them. They would also spoil a puppy, only to discard it (because it’s just an ‘animal’) when its behavior becomes intolerable. Even if they caused the behavior by never training the poor thing. They never gave it boundaries, which in turn often leads to a dog that isn’t confident and trusting in its own right.
Yes, dogs are a lot like humans. I think having a puppy is analogous in many ways to having a human child. The difference is that they are not human—they are our oldest domesticated partners. We are their pack, and with any good pack relationship there needs to be a leader. People that treat their children as they should a dog—training, positive reinforcement, strict boundaries, and unconditional love—are good parents in my sensibilities.
I still think that the reward compared to the amount of energy invested is much higher for those that choose dogs over human babies. But then again, I’m childfree and always have been. And always will be. As for a puppy? Given time, graduation from law school, and enough money to live in a place where my horses can roam and I have space to exercise a dog..?
I think I’m going to get a Doberman.
Monday, December 15, 2008
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".
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)