#181 / Meta- Whatever

"Meta -" is a prefix that indicates that there is something "beyond" or "behind" whatever the word is to which the prefix is attached.

In our age of computers, many have come to know of "metadata." If you don't know about how that works, it would be good to learn. Unless special efforts are made to eliminate the metadata, our word processing documents contain not only the words we write, but also data "behind" those words, and that metadata reveals a lot about who did what and when.

If you are going to submit a term paper that you are supposed to have written yourself, and are having a volunteer or paid person do the actual writing for you (a not uncommon situation, according to my wife, who teaches community college) then you had better strip out the metadata before submitting the paper, or you may be found out. In my wife's classes, that sort of thing will earn you an "F." Not just for the paper, either, but for the course.

I am not submitting this post to help students cheat. I just want to observe that behind all the "realities" we think we know about, are often "other realities" which inform them, or even "cause" the realities most apparent.

Behind the realities of our human world are the actions that humans have taken in the past. Strip out the "metadata" of our current reality, and human freedom is observed.

#180 / Two Worlds Theory

I tend to be rather "theoretical" in the way I approach life. In other words, "theoretical" concepts and ideas are more important to me than what are often called the "facts."

Scientists also have this bias towards theory; at least, I think that this is one of the characteristics attributed to the scientific approach. We find the scientific "facts," actually, by coming up with a theory about what reality is like, and then going out and doing research based on the theory. If the theory turns out to be true, we learn that it is true by the facts that validate it. Reading about the research and experiments based on (and validating) Einstein's theories about the nature of the universe is an obvious example.

But I am not much of a "scientist." I have spent most of my life working in what I think of as a "political world," and in that realm, theory leads not to the discovery of the "facts," but to the creation of facts, the new realities that are the product of our actions.

I have just reviewed my past thoughts on "Theory And Practice," and I still think I am right.

#179 / Dualism

Anyone who propounds a "two world hypothesis" must obviously confront the concept of "dualism."

Dualist theologies have often been characterized as "heresy," in the Christian tradition, and the heretical enters in when a theology posits two gods, not one.

My favorite theologian and philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, has titled one of his books Purity of Heart Is To Will One Thing. The tradition of the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers), seeks "unity," and being of "one mind," and clings to the concept of "simplicity" as a basic tenet of Quaker "Faith and Practice." "Dualism" is disfavored, in other words, where I come from.

Nonetheless, I do think that my "two world" hypothesis is helpful (and not heretical). I don't suggest that the world we create is or ever could be equal to the world of Nature, the world we don't create, and in which we find ourselves as "creatures" not "creators." Instead, I like my "two worlds" as a way to understand and explain the dimensions of human possibility.

My experience in politics (the very purpose of which is to make collective changes that we think would be beneficial) has demonstrated to me that humans often assume that certain things that could actually be changed are not susceptible of alteration, and that limiting and unchangeable realities can be ignored. We assume, for instance, that we have to provide for automobiles in all our planning, and that we don't have to do anything, really, to deal with the fact that the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels will lead to the radical alteration of the biosphere upon which our lives depend.

Different rules apply in the World of Nature than in the human world that we create. In our world, anything that doesn't contradict the "laws of Nature" can be accomplished. But woe unto us if we think we can ignore what Nature requires.

I say "two" worlds, but not two "gods." The World of Nature is where the ultimate truths of our existence will be found.

#178 / Takers And Leavers

This may be my last comment for a while on the books of the Ishmael trilogy. (Click on the image for the photo credit).

For those not familiar with the Daniel Quinn books, one of Quinn's central distinctions is between the "Takers" and the "Leavers." This probably best translates as a distinction between "civilized" and "primitive" peoples. The "civilized" peoples are the "Takers."

It is Quinn's thought that the history of human culture is a story about how the basic nature of humanity has been diverted, over about the last 10,000 years or so, into a pathway in which a "Taker" philosophy has come to be taken for granted, although the premises of the "civilization" so constructed (our civilization) makes this civilization unsustainable. The "Takers" are definitely the rulers of the human and "political" world, in my two-world hypothesis. The "Leavers" are "primitive" in that they live in (and never presume to rule) the world of Nature.

As I reread Ishmael, I discovered (or rediscovered) that Quinn's explanation of the Genesis story about the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise was not so different from my own:

The knowledge of good and evil is fundamentally the knowledge the rulers of the world must exercise, because every single thing they do is good for some but evil for others.This is what ruling is all about, isn't it?

Yes.

And man was born to rule the world, wasn't he?

Yes. According to Taker mythology.

Then why would the gods withhold the very knowledge man needs to fulfill his destiny? From the Taker point of view, it makes no sense at all.

True.

The disaster occurred when, ten thousand years ago, the people of your culture said, "We're as wise as the gods and can rule the world as well as they." When they took into their own hands the power of life and death over the world, their doom was assured.

Yes. Because they are not in fact as wise as the gods.

The gods ruled the world for billions of years, and it was doing just fine. After just a few thousand years of human rule, the world is at the point of death.

True. But the Takers will never give it up.

Ishmael shrugged. "Then they'll die. As predicted. The authors of this story knew what they were talking about."

#177 / Contract Renewal Time

The photo is of the Cosmic Lady. It's a photograph that is said to date from 1980, when the Cosmic Lady was in San Francisco. You can click the image to get the website reference.

I met the Cosmic Lady before 1980. I think, in fact, I knew her during the early or mid-1970's, when I was first getting involved in community issues in Santa Cruz. The Cosmic Lady hung out near the Cooper House on the Pacific Garden Mall, providing a colorful commentary and prophetic witness which fit well with the spirit of the community.

I was thinking of the Cosmic Lady yesterday, because one of her often repeated phrases was running through my head: "It's contract renewal time."

In many ways, a call to create a new human reality is directly tied to what the Cosmic Lady called "contract renewal time." Nothing that we create will last forever, and it's just about time to turn the page, and to initiate a new set of relationships and a whole "new order" in the world.

On a whim, I typed "Cosmic Lady" into my favorite search engine, and found not only her picture, but learned that a Santa Cruz author, Marshall Motz, has written a book about the Cosmic Lady.

The title of Motz' book is The Cosmic Lady Was Right. You can read an excerpt by clicking the title that I have linked to Motz' website, or you can "see inside" the book on Amazon. Locally, you can purchase the book from Bookshop Santa Cruz.

While I'm waiting to read the whole book, I'll keep thinking. Maybe the Cosmic Lady was right. Maybe it really is "contract renewal time."

#176 / Saving Which World?

Daniel Quinn, in his books, is seriously trying to "save the world." I am definitely in favor of that, as a life purpose. No irony is intended. The followers of "B," the lead character in The Story of B, understand that this is B's objective, and Ishmael, Quinn's gorilla hero, makes it even more explicit, advertising as follows (in My Ishmael):

TEACHER seeks pupil. Must have an earnest desire to save the world. Apply in person.

At one point in his writings, Quinn makes clear that his analysis is based on a "one world" theory. There is no distinction between the world of human creation and the world of Nature. Everything is part of Nature.

My thought, of course, is somewhat different. It's absolutely true that everything that exists is ultimately dependent on the world of Nature, and in that sense there is only "one world." I think it is indisputable, however, that humans also create a world of their own, which can be called "civilization," and that our powers are such that we can now go beyond the mere rearrangement of the elements we find in the natural world, as we actually create new substances and compounds, totally synthetic, that are not only different from those found in the natural world, but that are totally antithetic to it.

The plastic pollution of the marine environment is one good example, and a consequence of the creation of synthetic materials that don't conform to one of the most important of the laws of Nature: our synthetic creations are designed never to die. Much of the impetus for the creation of the human world that seeks to be different from the world of Nature probably comes from our human disinclination to subject ourselves to the rule of death. We don't identify with the world of Nature, in which we are part of a totality that lives forever, though the "individuals" within it do not. Our efforts, in our world, are not to be part of an ongoing process of birth, death, and rebirth, but an effort to stop that process one way or another, so that our own creations are imperishable. A lot of theology is an exploration of these questions.

But, back to my title. "Which" world should we save, if we in fact do live simultaneously in "two worlds?"

It is not our place to "save" the natural world. Any effort to chart this as a major purpose is to perpetuate the human arrogance that assumes that we are the Creators of the world in which we ultimately live, instead of creatures within it. And as for "saving" our world, it seems obvious to me that making the purpose of our lives revolve on an effort to "save" the current version of the human world is a misplaced and ultimately futile effort.

I do believe that it is helpful to think that we live, in fact, in "two worlds," the world of Nature, upon which we ultimately depend, and a "political" world, created by human actions, which is the world we most immediately inhabit. In our world, in which anything is possible (anything that doesn't contradict the ultimate rules established by the world of Nature, of course), the issue is not "saving" what already exists, but "changing" our world better to conform to our deepest aspirations, and to the world of Nature.

It is in our human world that we do live most immediately. To "save" that world, we must "change" it, and the change needed is that we must restore a right relationship between that human world and the world of Nature upon which we ultimately depend. This is, in fact, what Quinn is calling for in his books. This is, I think, an appropriate purpose for our lives.

#175 / The Ring Recapitulated

The San Francisco Opera has just completed a performance of the entire Ring Cycle, by Richard Wagner. Another performance of all four operas is underway now, and tickets are available for a third Ring Cycle, starting on June 28th. The current production got a rather good review in the San Francisco Chronicle.

While the Ring Cycle is presented as a story of the gods, ending with Gotterdammerung, the "Twilight of the Gods," the San Francisco Opera production makes clear, with its contemporary references, that this is a story of how humans have treated the world. Our willingness to savage nature for wealth and power leads to the degradation of the natural environment, on which we all depend. Restoration of the natural order occurs only when our monuments to power are burned to the ground, and when we renounce the mechanisms (the golden ring) by which we attempt to subjugate nature to achieve human ends.

In the Ring Cycle, the flawed and fallible gods ultimately get it right. Would that we might do the same.

#174 / The Twilight Of The Gods

The fourth and final opera in Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle is Gotterdammerung, or The Twilight Of The Gods. The image is of Brünnhilde confronting Siegfried. Here's a synopsis of the story furnished by the San Francisco Opera:

Siegfried gives Brünnhilde the ring as a token of their union and sets off for new adventures. He meets the self-serving siblings Gunther and Gutrune and their half-brother Hagen. Seeking the ring, Hagen uses a potion to trick Siegfried into abandoning Brünnhilde, who joins him in plotting revenge. Hagen murders Siegfried, and Brünnhilde, understanding too late the deception, orders a funeral pyre built for Siegfried. As she strides into the fire, the flames rise to destroy Valhalla, the Rhine overflows its banks and the ring is returned to its rightful owners, the Rhinemaidens. The era of the gods is now over.

In the production presented by the San Francisco Opera, a new ash tree is planted, and the order of the world is presumably restored.

Wish it had been. The gods are gone. We do know that. But our current behavior, in our human world, reflects the foolishness of the gods from the opera, who sought power at the expense of both love and nature.

#173 / Siegfried

Siegfried is episode number three in Wagner's Ring Cycle. Or, for those wanting more complexity, it can also be described as episode two in Der Ring des Niebelungen, since Das Rheingold, which comes first, is considered as a "Prologue" to the three subsequent operas. Taking the series as a whole, though, which is the way to sign up to see it, Siegfried comes third.

Siegfried is a mortal man (though with a pretty nice lineage from the gods: Wotan, the "king of the gods," is his grandfather). As a mortal man, who knows no fear (which is nice), and who is pure of heart, with no avarice for the dominating power of the golden ring, and whose major preoccupation is love (sex is definitely associated), Siegfried has the happy task of winning the woman and conquering the monster who has been hiding the ring. Things are looking up!

#172 / The Valkyrie

In episode one of Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle, Das Rheingold, the golden treasure of nature is taken from the river. Love is renounced in a quest for the power that will give the wearer of the golden ring forged from the stolen treasure the ability completely to dominate the world.

Even before that, the god of gods, Wotan, has cut into the Tree of Life, to shape a spear that gives him invincibility.

By episode two, The Valkyrie, it's easy to see the result (pictured). This image is from the recent performance given by the San Francisco Opera. From his castle in the sky, Valhalla, the construction of which was paid for with the stolen gold, Wotan can look down on a dirty and degraded world.

What happens next? Two more operas are to come. And a lot more trouble is in store!

#171 / The Quinn Trilogy

I have now completed the basic Daniel Quinn trilogy: Ishmael, The Story Of B, and My Ishmael. I found these books provocative and well worth reading, but diagnosis, not remedy, is the main emphasis.

For instance, My Ishmael takes on education, and seems to imply that the elimination of all formal schooling would be a good thing. There is, however, no actual recommendation that this be tried. In The Story Of B, Quinn takes on irrigated agriculture, and he seems to imply that the elimination of irrigated agriculture would be beneficial. Nonetheless, despite the implications of his analysis, Quinn specifically disavows this as a recommendation.

In other words, while Quinn's critique of our current human civilization is blistering, no political or other specific program for change is suggested. In fact, it is Quinn's view, repeated several times in The Story Of B, that people who advance new programs to deal with real problems (but who don't propound any change in our current vision of the world) are bound to be ineffectual. Genuine change will come from people with a new vision, and no programs at all.

For Quinn, thus, "vision" is posited as ultimately self-executing. Quinn's obvious and commendable desire to "save the world," which is the explicit objective of "B," can be accomplished simply by articulating our situation in the way Quinn does in his books.

Maybe this technique will work. I would like to believe it will, but the test isn't in the analysis; it's in the results. As Karl Marx said, in his Theses on Feuerbach, "the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."

#170 / Scientific Politics

Professor Otis Pease called for a "tough minded" approach to politics. It strikes me that such an approach might also be called "scientific" politics. To me, science is about determining what the "facts" are. Politics needs to deal with real "facts," too.

"Fact," as a category, however, pertains to the world of Nature, and not to the world of politics. The world of politics and the world of Nature are the "two worlds" in my "Two World Hypothesis," and they are quite different realms. In the realm of politics, there really aren't "facts" in the same way that such "facts" exist in the world of Nature, since the realities of the human world, our "political" world, are the realities we create. Within the world we make, nothing is ever "given" or "inevitable." We determine political "realities" by our actions. "Facts," in the human world, are human creations.

Given this truth, is a "scientific," "fact based," politics a contradiction in terms? Not if what we demand from politics is that it confront and deal with real "facts," the facts of the world of Nature, upon which we ultimately depend.

It seems pretty indisputable to me that current population and consumption trends are unsustainable, and are thus pushing human civilization towards collapse. It is indisputable, based on the "facts" of actual measurement, that the Earth is heating up. And it is indisputable that this global warming is having new impacts on our human world that will, at the very least, be inconvenient for us, and which may be life threatening.

A "scientific" politics would take account of these actual "facts" from the world of Nature. Instead, our politics is making heroic efforts to turn its face away from the facts. Our President, for instance, is opening up new opportunities for oil and coal development, touting the new energy resources that can address human problems. The "facts" would tell us that every time we increase the combustion of hydrocarbons we make our situation worse, in terms of the science that underlies global warming. New energy reserves are bad news, not good news, for our civilization.

Otis Pease, I am pretty sure, would not consider our politics today "tough minded."

#169 / More On B

The Story Of B, by Daniel Quinn, is a serious effort to write a "save the world" primer, in the guise of a novel. I have already mentioned Quinn's iconoclastic suggestion that it should be possible to reverse the exponential expansion of human population by restricting food production. The "population problem," and similar problems related to over-consumption, are real problems. A credible argument suggests,in fact, that if our current population and consumption patterns continue into the 2030's, we would need two Earths to support us.

Fascinating to me is Quinn's diagnosis of what has caused our problems. I think I might have guessed "reliance on fossil fuels" as the touchstone. Quinn, however, attributes our failure to live sustainably to the creation of irrigated agriculture.

If this seems implausible to you, you should enjoy wrestling with Quinn's book!

#168 / Wagner The Environmentalist

Das Rheingold, performed last Tuesday by the San Francisco Opera, is the first of the four operas that comprise Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle.

Gold, taken from its natural place in the waters of the Rhine, where the Rhinemaidens (pictured) have been stationed to guard it, is used to forge a ring that gives total power to its possessor.

The gold is taken, love is renounced, and it is all down hill from there, with three operas to go till we know the ultimate result.

Lesson so far: savaging Nature to acquire wealth and power is not a good idea!

#167 / Stop Bitching

Sometimes, short says it best. If we are dissatisfied with the world in which we live, we can change it.

#166 / Does Nature Have Rights?

The development of an approach to Nature that values Nature for the "ecosystem services" it provides is one way that human beings are trying to confront the basic dilemma we have created for ourselves: human life depends on Nature, and yet our efforts to create our human world, in a design that we find attractive, leads us to destroy the fabric of the world of Nature, upon which we are ultimately dependent.

So, maybe if we understood how valuable Nature is, in terms of money (money being the standard of value in our human world), we'd do a better job of not sawing off the limb on which we are sitting.

Or maybe not. I remain skeptical that an approach that implicitly values Nature in human terms (in terms of money and the markets) will lead us to appropriate policy decisions. Those decisions, I think, will come only when we deeply acknowledge the primacy of Nature over all our own designs and projects.

The "Rights of Nature" approach is a different way to try to find a solution for our dilemma. Last April, there was a landmark gathering of social movements in Bolivia, and out of that meeting emerged the Cochabamba People's Agreement, honoring the Rights of Nature. (Click this link to get a brief description and summary of the meeting; I am pleased to note that one of my literary and political heroes, the Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano, was a participant at Cochabamba). The People's Agreement developed at Cochabamba was later merged into a negotiating text considered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, at the UN Climate Change Conference, in Cancun (called COP-16, and held in November and December of 2010). However, at the Climate Change Conference, all reference to Cochabamba had been removed. Shannon Biggs, Community Rights Director with Global Exchange, is quoted in the summary I mention above, to this effect: "The Rights of Nature offers a platform for action to challenge the market-based approach that dominates the UN COP process." In other words, the Rights of Nature approach suggests an alternative to an approach that values Nature in terms of money.

I am not certain that a "rights" based approach will resolve the basic dilemma, since "rights" are established by human declarations. There appears to be an implicit assumption in the "rights" based approach that such human declarations will be sufficient to establish the "rights" which Nature is to enjoy, which puts Nature, again, in a dependent position vis a vis human actions. If I am correct in my "Two World Hypothesis," the opposite is the case. We depend on Nature. Nature doesn't depend on us.

Santa Cruz area residents who want to explore these topics in person, and in more depth, might want to mark their calendars for a meeting of the Santa Cruz County branch of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 21st at 7:00 p.m. at the Quaker Meetinghouse in Santa Cruz, 225 Rooney Street, right at the Morrissey Boulevard exit off Highway One. Shannon Biggs, from Global Exchange, will be there to talk about the book.

#165 / Transparency

"Transparency" is generally applauded. I applaud it myself. There are those, though, bold enough to proclaim themselves "against transparency." They do have some arguments. In order to "think," whether individually or collectively, it is important to be able to have an "internal" or "private" debate, so bad ideas can be considered outside the inferno of public scrutiny. That, at least, was my experience as an elected official at the local level of government. Our relationship with "transparency," then, in the realm of human debate, is "complicated," just like some of those personal relationships mentioned on a Facebook profile.

Our political process would work better, I believe, if there were more "transparency" in government. I am on the side of the Wikileakers, in other words. The debate and discussion that leads to the collective decisions that create our human world will almost always be better informed, and therefore substantively better, if more, not less, information is available for the debate.

The "availability" of good information, of course, doesn't guarantee that it will be used, or that good information will prevail, in the realm of political discourse. Have you, for instance, ever heard of Fox News, which claims to employ a "fair and balanced" approach to political debate?

My conclusion about the "transparency" discussion is that trying to focus lots of energy on providing transparency as a major objective of our politics is likely to be a diversion. We already have plenty of information upon which we can build our case for change and action (from whichever side we argue, on whatever question).

And as for truth, the "truth will out." That is my real belief:

From Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, 1596:

LAUNCELOT: Nay, indeed, if you had your eyes, you might fail of the knowing me: it is a wise father that knows his own child. Well, old man, I will tell you news of your son: give me your blessing: truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son may, but at the length truth will out.

In the longer run, it seems to me, transparency will take care of itself.

#164 / B

The Story of B is a novel by Daniel Quinn, who also wrote the book Ishmael. I read The Story of B on my recent trip to Russia.

Quinn is well worth reading. His books have a serious intent. As one of the characters in The Story of B says, referring to "B," who is the main character, "B" is admittedly trying to "save the world." Unfortunately, it does appear that we need to think about that as an assignment for us all. We can't be taking the continued existence of our world for granted anymore.

At any rate, "B" propounds an interesting answer to a question recently posed to me by a friend, who is taking seriously the task of saving the world:

What would be an effective structure for public policy in reducing U.S. population as a contribution to reducing global population? The China model requires a level of central control not yet developed in the U.S. Would tax incentives be enough? Hardly for all classes of society? Reversible birth control in public water supplies? This seems to be a stumbling block for my thinking. What is our version of quickness based on keenness of mind?

"B" does not suggest centralized regulatory practices. He does not counsel exhortation (the rhythm method), advanced contraception techniques, or tax incentives. He believes that it is absolutely demonstrated, as a matter of basic population biology, that increased food supplies lead to increased population. In other words, "if you grow it, they will come."

"B" suggests regulating food supply, not population directly. If we were to set up mechanisms to ensure that we (collectively, planet wide) produced the same amount of food each year (but not more food) than we produced the year before, "B" believes that population would stabilize.

It works for rats.

Well, I know we are not rats ("B" takes on this point directly, by the way), but maybe we ought to give it a try.

#163 / Causing Change To Precipitate

My theory of change relies quite heavily on the metaphor of the supersaturated solution. I believe that change does not just "happen to us," but that we "make it happen" by our own actions and decisions. In fact, we "legislate" the world in which we most immediately reside. 

The process of change may not always come from the kind of activities that are long and laborious, as the "legislative" process almost inevitably is. I think it is clear that startling and rapid transformations of our human reality are possible, and in fact should be expected, since change does not correlate in any linear fashion with the actions that cause it. 

 Change that we can "see," as when a crystal precipitates out from the supersaturated solution of our lives, is often related to what might be thought of as a relatively minor disturbance to the existing situation. You can see how that happened in Tahrir Square. I think that this kind of change may be more the rule than the exception. People and their actions, individual persons casting their lives into the flask of our common life, cause these changes that we "believe in" because we finally see them in fact. 

Individual people do that, which is why biography is a serious study. Peter Douglas is someone who has reflected on this phenomenon, and is continuing to do so, and he is a person whose life and life actions have precipitated changes that have benefited us all. Here is a reference to Peter's blog. A good bit of biography!

#162 / Circular Causation

 

I think I was a senior in college when I picked up a very thin hardback book from a "for sale" bin at the Stanford Bookstore, and bought a copy of Economic Theory And Under-Developed Regions, by Gunnar Myrdal. I still have the book, one of my favorites, and the stamp on the inside cover says it cost me $1.00. I note that it is available today in hardback on Amazon.com for $196.22. A more economical paperback edition also appears to be available (used), but the book is out of print. Myrdal's insights on economic development are still worth reading, but I treasure the book for Chapter 2, entitled "The Principle of Circular and Cumulative Causation." 

 

I remember reading this Chapter as leading to a revelation, for me, about how the world actually works. My senior thesis for the Honors Program in Social Thought and Institutions was entitled "The Future of Change in America," and Myrdal's book suddenly made me aware that our future (and not just in America) was going to be determined by the principle of circular and cumulative causation. In short, the change that defines our future will be either a "vicious" or a "virtuous" circle. There is, as Myrdal says, "no ... tendency towards automatic self-stabilization in the social system." The fact that this is true lends urgency to our need to become personally involved in the politics of our time, to get the circle turning in the right direction. A column by Thomas Friedman, in Friday's paper, set me thinking about this topic. The column had the title, "The Earth Is Full," and ended on an optimistic note, quoting an Australian "environmentalist-entrepreneur" (quite possibly an oxymoron) named Paul Gilding. Here is Gilding's take on where we are:

 

We are heading for a crisis-driven choice. We either allow collapse to overtake us or develop a new sustainable economic model. We will choose the latter. We may be slow, but we’re not stupid.

 

I can't disagree that we are "slow" to realize the dimensions of the crisis that has been caused by our disregard of the limits of the natural world, as we speed ahead, as "entrepreneurs," to create human wealth. As we have done it, wealth in the human world has impoverished the world of Nature, upon which we are ultimately dependent. The situation is not so different from the description of the difference between wealthy and poor nations in Myrdal's book, with the world of Nature playing the role of the underdeveloped and ever more impoverished part of the world. Myrdal's conclusion (different from what Mr. Gilding propounds) is that there is nothing "automatic" about changing the course of an ongoing process of circular and cumulative causation.

We don't stop a tornado, in other words, by noting that it is going to be destructive, assuming that our observations of the fact will then motivate the necessary action to eliminate the danger. And when the "Earth is full," there is nowhere to go to get out of the way of the tornado that our own actions have called forth. With all due respect to Paul Gilding, and to the almost always cheery Thomas Friedman (he thought the war in Iraq was going to be dandy), being too "slow" is stupid. That's the definition of the word:

stu·pid

[stoo-pid, styoo‐]

–adjective

lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull

 

#161 / A Demand

My discouragement with national politics in the Obama era may reflect my own failure (and our collective failure) to remember the words of W.E.B. DuBois:

…Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

To be honest, "remembering" these words is not enough. We need to act on the insight they convey.

Only dedicated political organizing, in which hundreds, and thousands, and tens of thousands of us put our own lives on the line, and give up our comfortable existences in an effort to change the world, will have any chance of modifying this nation's ever deeper march into militarism, or will make an effective challenge to this nation's continuing capitulation to the oil companies that are willing to destroy the natural world to make more money.

#160 / The Ring

Wagner's "Ring Cycle" is a musical epic, soon to be performed by the San Francisco Opera. Wagner doesn't really have the best reputation (for some good reasons). As the Wikipedia article on Wagner says, "much heat is generated by Wagner's comments on Jews, which continue to influence the way that his works are regarded, and by the essays he wrote on the nature of race from 1850 onwards, and their putative influence on the antisemitism of Adolf Hitler."

Because I am signed up to see the San Francisco Opera production of The Ring of the Nibelung, I decided to read the story in an English translation by Andrew Porter. In this translation, at least, the story turns out to be rather understandable, and full of philosophy. The main point: greed and desire for wealth and mastery put the World of Nature at risk.

Wagner teaches ecology. Really! Click on the image for a review in the San Francisco Chronicle.

#159 / Garden Tour

Each weekday, I provide a very brief Land Use Report on KUSP Radio, as a local insert in NPR's "Morning Edition" program. Generally, I talk about land use, water, and transportation policy, with an emphasis on upcoming meetings and events that are relevant to those interested in land use.

Of course, it's my position that we all ought to be interested in land use, since how we make use of the land has a major impact on the future of our local economy, the environment, and how (or if) we achieve our social equity goals. I routinely advise listeners to let me know of important events upcoming, so I can feature them, and this is exactly how I heard about a "Native Plant Garden Tour" being sponsored by the California Native Plant Society this weekend. The Garden Tour will take place here in the Monterey Bay Region, and I think that there is still time to register if you would like to participate.

As I note on tomorrow's edition of the Land Use Report, there are some very practical and important water policy impacts associated with the use of native (as opposed to non-native) plants in our residential and commercial landscaping schemes. On a philosophical level, though, the use of "non-native" instead of "native" plants reflects our human desire to replace the World of Nature, upon which we are ultimately dependent, with a world that we create ourselves. Anyone who consistently follows these blog postings know that I think that this is a big mistake.

So, let's hear it for native plants! Take the tour. You might just like what you see.

#158 / Ecosystem Services

"Ecosystem services" is a phrase used to make clear that there is real "value" in the natural environment. Money value, that is!

How much would it cost, for instance, to build the necessary apparatus to clean up contaminated water, and make it fit for drinking? Left alone, our ecosystem does that without the need for any human intervention. That's valuable. "Ecosystem services" is an investigation of how much money we would have to pay to obtain the "services" that nature gives us for "free."

For those who like the concept, this is a way to build respect for nature into our economy and political life. Since money "rules" in our human world, valuing nature in terms of money helps us understand that we ought to be respectful of the natural world.

A recent posting on Legal Planet, a blog I follow, illustrates the way "ecosystem services" has entered our public debate. The British government has recently done a report giving what purports to be a full tally of the (economic) value of the U.K. environment. Legal Planet thinks that this is splendid, since even though "the British government is controlled by budget-slashing conservatives," these British politicians "nonetheless seem to value the environment, unlike their American counterparts."

All good and well, but the premise upon which "ecosystem services" is based is fundamentally flawed. It's topsy-turvey thinking, because it proposes that we value the world of Nature in terms of the primary values in our human world (i.e., in terms of money). This gets it backwards, since our human world (where money is the measure of value) is in fact totally dependent on the world of Nature.

Because that is true (and as a popular ad campaign puts it, admittedly in a completely different context) the value of Nature is priceless!

Putting a price on Nature allows us to exploit it for human ends. Our continuing efforts to exploit Nature, and to achieve through that exploitation what we think of as our human objectives, is in fact the major challenge to the continued existence of human civilization on our planet. If we keep acting like Nature is dependent on us, rather than the opposite, we're on our way out.

Read up on global warming, if you don't believe me.

#157 / London

In our most recent trip, we visited London, Copenhagen, Stockholm, St. Petersburg, and Moscow.

London remains a favorite city. While you can certainly get an overview on the London Eye (pictured), the best is at street level (look right before you step off the curb).

On this trip, we took a voyage up the Thames to Greenwich, to see where GMT comes from. A lovely trip. Even in the rain.

#156 / Copenhagen

We went looking for Kierkegaard in Copenhagen. We found a Soren Kierkegaard Place on a map, but no evidence on the ground. We inquired at the Tourist Information Center, and were told where Kierkegaard's body was buried, and that his family home had been torn down.

We learned that there was a small exhibit on Kierkegaard in the town museum, and we trudged a long way to get there. At the museum, we found that the exhibit was inaccessible because the room in which it was kept was in a hall being renovated in connection with an exhibition on Mexico City, which just happens to be Copenhagen's sister city.

Luckily, the museum attendant on duty was a Kierkegaard fanatic. We talked Kierkegaard, and he broke the rules and let us in. We saw Kierkegaard's desk, and got an address where Kierkegaard had rented, just before he died, and we went away with the idea that the best way to get to know Kierkegaard is to read his books. Luckily, they are all still available, and in the language of your choice.

Other things in Copenhagen were very nice. Don't miss the Tivoli Gardens Amusement Park when you visit. Quite a step up from the Santa Cruz Boardwalk.

#155 / Access

Before going to Russia, my wife Marilyn and I visited Stockholm, largely because Marilyn has a dear friend who lives there, Birgit Aquilonius.

Birgit and her husband, Lasse Bergman, showed us a great time, but their best gift may have been our "access" passes. The access card, as pictured, provides immediate and easy entry to all: (1) buses, both in the city and in the archipelago; (2) the Stockholm tunnel-bana, the city's incredibly efficient subway; (3) any of the electric tramcars that run throughout the city; and (4) the ferries between the islands comprising the city.

Stockholm (in the summer; I can't speak for the winter) is really spectacular. I recommend it.

But buy an access pass before you go!!

#154 / Peterhof

The Peterhof Palace, on the Gulf of Finland, is about a forty minute hydrofoil ride from St. Petersburg. It is far and away the most impressive such "palace" I have ever seen.

They didn't call him "Peter the Great" for nothing.

Highly recommended when you are next in St. Petersburg. Which I hope, someday, you are. The City, too, is highly recommended.

#153 / Red Square

We did (on Saturday, May 28th) make it to Moscow's Red Square (more or less as predicted on May 11th). We found tens of thousands of people jamming the space for some sort of special entertainment day featuring skateboarding contests. Frankly, we couldn't figure out what was going on. In addition, the predominate color was not red, but pink. About every third person was wearing an"Avon Lady" tee-shirt, all sporting that distinctive color!

Because of the crowds and the special event, we couldn't get into St. Basil's Cathedral (pictured), or Lenin's tomb, or the Kremlin. We could, however, get into the GUM department store, which is also on Red Square, nearby those other buildings. GUM is also pictured; you figure out which picture is which.

GUM makes that big San Francisco Shopping Center with Nordstrom's, on Market Street, look puny and weak. Looking for evidences of Socialism, we found a few red stars still in evidence, and we discovered a statue of Lenin in a neglected courtyard, about a mile from Red Square. But that didn't rival GUM and the Avon Ladies.

Our somewhat reluctant conclusion: in Russia (in Moscow, at least), capitalism has won!

#152 / O'Hara's Choice

O'Hara's Choice, a novel by Leon Uris, is not a book I'd normally read. In fact, I haven't really "read" it, hands on paper. I have, though, listened to the novel as one of the "books on tape" that accompany me wherever I drive. The Santa Cruz Public Library has a pretty extensive collection of such materials, in CD and tape versions, now shelved separately at the Main Branch, and available at the other branches, too.

This particular book is, substantively, a history of the early years of the United States Marine Corps. In terms of plot, it's a romantic love story.

O'Hara's Choice turns out to be a paean to patriotism. Here's what the hero, Zachary O'Hara, has to say to a class of Marine Corp cadets, as he expounds upon the Monroe Doctrine:

We won our freedom with ideas, more powerful than arms ... We enter the New World not so much to plunder, to crush people, or to rule. All mankind whispers our name, America, with reverence. So long as we maintain our basic human decency, the world will behold us as the keeper of man's most noble flame ...

O'Hara's Choice was published in 2003. Whatever may have been the case in the historic times described in the story (and I am now inclined to doubt that the "reverential whispers" mentioned here were ever actually spoken with respect to the foreign policy of the United States), there were certainly no such "reverential whispers" in 2003. Nor are there any today.

Let's not delude ourselves. The world today does not perceive "America" in the way that the O'Hara character describes it. And there is a very good reason for that. The United States does not, in fact, conduct itself, as a nation, with a primary commitment to "basic human decency." Among other things, we are sending drone planes to other countries to kill the people our agents deem hostile, with no trial or review by any public process, and if other people (admittedly not deserving of death, but just happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) are killed too, well, that's just too bad. This is not my idea of "basic human decency."

Many citizens of the United States apparently believe that the words of Zachary O'Hara still describe our national conduct and character. Let's not delude ourselves.

I am in favor of going back to a commitment to "ideas," not "arms." But to see how far from that we are (and were, in 2003), check out our federal budget. Our single largest commitment is to war. As someone said: "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Actually, that was Jesus, speaking as a sociologist.

Right now, we can forget about saying that our commitment is to "ideas" not "arms." The arms have it.

That's our choice.