C. Henry Martens's Blog, page 10
June 16, 2017
Smart People are Indecisive
©2017 C. Henry Martens
I spend a lot of time and energy begging people to be indecisive. That may sound strange, but in our rushed society I find it far too easy to rush to conclusions. People get in trouble rushing to conclusions. What's worse is how we all have to live with decisions made in a hurry, especially the I-told-you-so terrible consequences kind. I mean, we're always right... RIGHT?
The thing is, most of us make decisions based on the leanings of the tribe we hang out with. Life is easier and we're happier when we can all agree on who our heroes are and who the evil bastards are. Agreement takes less brain power, too. No need to consider more than one point of view. But the problem is if we only hear one side, we are basing our conclusions on limited information.
Have you noticed that once someone takes a position on something, they are practically impossible to sway to the other side? I think this is a growing phenomenon, as before the industrial revolution people depended on being right to survive. Nowadays people know they can be idiots and they will still be taken care of. Not only are people stuck in cement, they are adamant that they don't have to consider the opposite side of an argument they have already formed a conclusion on.
Recently I was in a meeting, and a subject came up that I felt was worthy of discussion. I leaned one way, I admit, but had not decided completely on what side I would support. I wanted further input and felt the intelligent, well-informed people in the group might offer some interesting points of view and perhaps some facts I might have missed. I suggested we look into it, perhaps even having an informal debate. A person I respected, a person I had always assumed was intelligent and inquisitive, objected right away. “I already know everything I need to know about (the issue).” I asked what they knew about the arguments opposing their conclusion. “If I need to know something, I can always get on the internet and find out anything I need.”
Huh?
How does a person come to a conclusion worthy of taking a position... without entertaining both sides?
It is done ALL THE TIME.
People form conclusions without hearing more than one side and then spend their energy defending the conclusion they have formed rather than listening to and evaluating the side that opposes their choice. They purposely avoid even hearing opposing evidence, entertaining logic, and the worst thing... actively seek to vilify any opposing viewpoints or people rather than test their arguments. And I'm sure you have noticed, right? Those people on the other side are such hypocrites.
Got a mirror?
A challenge. I double dog dare you to listen to someone without defending your own conclusions. Pick a subject and stick to one single point without getting distracted by the greater theme. You'll have to act interested and in particular, think in terms of how the idea might actually work. It'll be hard to toss out your negativity, and truthfully, most will fail. It takes practice to maintain an open mind, and most people automatically assume they have one without doing the work. Open mindedness takes an intentional effort.
How can we expect our politicians to get work done if they aren't hearing what we have to say? And who can blame them for not listening when it seems there are only two points of view that are horizontally opposed? We citizens set the example, and somehow, we have fallen for the idea that we are right while only considering one information source, our tribe.
I watched a documentary yesterday and again today. The film offered information I would never have entertained had I not been willing to hear what was being said. I am a better, more informed, and less ignorant person for the experience. My mind has been enlightened, my view of the world challenged, and my prior conclusions altered. What surprises me is that my former position is largely intact, while I now agree with all the major points made in a documentary I expected to find fault with. Where I expected two opposite and unalterably antagonistic positions, I found common ground between what I already accepted as worthy information and the new information received. I am richer.
So here I am, begging you to be indecisive. Asking you to open your mind to new information, to hear what both sides have to say, to think before coming to a decision. How hard is that to do? And what are the costs if you can't?
And please remember there is no time limit on being accurate. Changing your mind is a good thing if you find better information, and sometimes it takes a while. You are under no obligation to rush to a conclusion or to remain faithful to one you begin to question.
I like to use percentages to describe how committed I am to an issue. My percentages are usually based on how many good arguments I hear on each side and how much they make sense. That way I can take a position and argue it without missing the information being used on the other side.
One last thing. Anyone that can't be critical of their own side is either lazy or brainwashed. But I'm willing to listen if you disagree.
Just sayin'...
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
I spend a lot of time and energy begging people to be indecisive. That may sound strange, but in our rushed society I find it far too easy to rush to conclusions. People get in trouble rushing to conclusions. What's worse is how we all have to live with decisions made in a hurry, especially the I-told-you-so terrible consequences kind. I mean, we're always right... RIGHT?
The thing is, most of us make decisions based on the leanings of the tribe we hang out with. Life is easier and we're happier when we can all agree on who our heroes are and who the evil bastards are. Agreement takes less brain power, too. No need to consider more than one point of view. But the problem is if we only hear one side, we are basing our conclusions on limited information.
Have you noticed that once someone takes a position on something, they are practically impossible to sway to the other side? I think this is a growing phenomenon, as before the industrial revolution people depended on being right to survive. Nowadays people know they can be idiots and they will still be taken care of. Not only are people stuck in cement, they are adamant that they don't have to consider the opposite side of an argument they have already formed a conclusion on.
Recently I was in a meeting, and a subject came up that I felt was worthy of discussion. I leaned one way, I admit, but had not decided completely on what side I would support. I wanted further input and felt the intelligent, well-informed people in the group might offer some interesting points of view and perhaps some facts I might have missed. I suggested we look into it, perhaps even having an informal debate. A person I respected, a person I had always assumed was intelligent and inquisitive, objected right away. “I already know everything I need to know about (the issue).” I asked what they knew about the arguments opposing their conclusion. “If I need to know something, I can always get on the internet and find out anything I need.”
Huh?
How does a person come to a conclusion worthy of taking a position... without entertaining both sides?
It is done ALL THE TIME.
People form conclusions without hearing more than one side and then spend their energy defending the conclusion they have formed rather than listening to and evaluating the side that opposes their choice. They purposely avoid even hearing opposing evidence, entertaining logic, and the worst thing... actively seek to vilify any opposing viewpoints or people rather than test their arguments. And I'm sure you have noticed, right? Those people on the other side are such hypocrites.
Got a mirror?
A challenge. I double dog dare you to listen to someone without defending your own conclusions. Pick a subject and stick to one single point without getting distracted by the greater theme. You'll have to act interested and in particular, think in terms of how the idea might actually work. It'll be hard to toss out your negativity, and truthfully, most will fail. It takes practice to maintain an open mind, and most people automatically assume they have one without doing the work. Open mindedness takes an intentional effort.
How can we expect our politicians to get work done if they aren't hearing what we have to say? And who can blame them for not listening when it seems there are only two points of view that are horizontally opposed? We citizens set the example, and somehow, we have fallen for the idea that we are right while only considering one information source, our tribe.
I watched a documentary yesterday and again today. The film offered information I would never have entertained had I not been willing to hear what was being said. I am a better, more informed, and less ignorant person for the experience. My mind has been enlightened, my view of the world challenged, and my prior conclusions altered. What surprises me is that my former position is largely intact, while I now agree with all the major points made in a documentary I expected to find fault with. Where I expected two opposite and unalterably antagonistic positions, I found common ground between what I already accepted as worthy information and the new information received. I am richer.
So here I am, begging you to be indecisive. Asking you to open your mind to new information, to hear what both sides have to say, to think before coming to a decision. How hard is that to do? And what are the costs if you can't?
And please remember there is no time limit on being accurate. Changing your mind is a good thing if you find better information, and sometimes it takes a while. You are under no obligation to rush to a conclusion or to remain faithful to one you begin to question.
I like to use percentages to describe how committed I am to an issue. My percentages are usually based on how many good arguments I hear on each side and how much they make sense. That way I can take a position and argue it without missing the information being used on the other side.
One last thing. Anyone that can't be critical of their own side is either lazy or brainwashed. But I'm willing to listen if you disagree.
Just sayin'...
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
June 9, 2017
The Ethics of Eating
©2017 C. Henry Martens
Driving through Wyoming, on a long stretch of very straight road through desolate country, I happened to glance into one of those depressions where a culvert went under the road. An emaciated antelope stood in the lee of the embankment, in an effort to escape the cutting, cold wind. Even though I was cruising along at seventy-plus miles an hour and only glimpsed the creature for a fraction of an instant, my mind has held that image as though it was a famous photograph published in National Geographic magazine. The image of a dying antelope in the middle of nowhere, unseen and unremembered by every other creature... except me.
I have been agonizing on the horns of a dilemma for years because I eat, and I have always been concerned with the morality of it.
But let's be clear. I eat meat. And the issue I have is not with the act of eating an animal with a face but with taking life to eat. I don't know if my feelings make me a food snob or unnecessarily over-concerned. Or maybe callous.
You see, I'm sympathetic to the idea that life has rights. That unnecessary death is something to be avoided. That there is a balance to the natural order, and I should be aware of my place in it.
That doesn't seem like the popularized concept of a meat eater, does it? Well, while I might agree that many people, maybe most, have never really tried to think through their thoughts and feelings concerning food, it seems that lately there is a tribe that assumes they have the moral high ground... when they don't. You see, whether you eat meat or not, animals die. And if you avoid meat as a source of food, death is still part of life.
The big question for me is where death is minimized. Where there is less suffering. Where respect is given and where there is less waste. In my perfect world, there would be no reason for domesticated food. But this is not a perfect world. There are too many people, and people require sustenance. Reality trumps perfection.
§
I grew up with large animals. Some of my earliest memories involve cattle and horses. I've owned two ranches, and in my higher education, I specialized in beef production. You might think this preordains my conclusions, but I have to say that would be wrong. I know ranchers that don't think past the profits they make, but of those I have had contact with, the vast majority weigh the values they bring to using the earth and caring for the animals in their charge. Just as you have to spend time with animals to appreciate and understand them, the same applies to animal people. We all evolve.
One of the things ranchers have to be familiar with is death. It's part of the job. In the civilized world, we insulate ourselves from death, uncomfortable with dying and often in denial of the realities. The antelope I saw by the side of the road, that fleeting instant, informed me that its body would be cold the next morning. The animal would die in the early hours of night. Over the next week or so, largely depending on temperatures, scavengers would feed on what little could be had and the skin that was left would mummify, and the larger bones would be scattered to bleach in the sun.
This is the way it is.
Some people reading this might be horrified that I didn't stop and take the dying antelope into my vehicle and try to get help for it. Or call someone. Or any of several scenarios that would have saved its life in a perfect world. But in my opinion, the natural world is perfect. Even though there are no good deaths in the wild, it is the human world that is skewed toward more and greater agony and most often in the name of human kindness.
Let's be clear. The numbers of animals dying in the world every day, hour, and minute, is staggering. We are horrified by poached elephants and palm-oil-displaced orangutans, at least if we understand the consequences of human overpopulation. But how many deer are killed on the roads? How many field mice are poisoned? How many useful bacteria are killed by unnecessary antibiotics? And truthfully, there are far more natural deaths. Death is a condition of living... period.
How does this apply to domesticated animals intended for food? Well, regardless of whether they go to a slaughter house or if they end their days in a shelter that allows them to die of old age, they still die. Death is a condition of living... period.
§
Let's take a break from the usual arguments that can be made concerning meat.
I have never been “plant blind.” I consider all life to be life and equal in respect to any concerns about ending life. New evidence discovered within the last few decades have verified my concerns.
Plants learn. They make decisions and remember. They protect their siblings and share space and nutrients to ensure that all individuals have a relatively equal chance to mature and survive. They have languages and even dialects. Charles Darwin suspected plants of having specialized cells in their roots to make decisions and process information, and recent findings bear his theories out. Researchers have come to see plants as having bodies much like our own, only reversed by being upside down, with the plant's brain in its roots and backside and sex organs waving in the air.
The more I learn about plants and their capabilities, their capacity for most of the criteria that we reserve for animals, the more they are proven to be as aware and high functioning as creatures that rip them from the ground and chew them up to live.
Remember I mentioned in a perfect world we would not use domesticated food sources? Perhaps you assumed that I meant animals. Plants are factory farmed, too, and far longer than the animals people express so much concern for. Unless you are plant blind, you recognize there are no live foods that don't think, feel, and struggle to survive.
§
Speaking of factory farms, and back to meat, we most often use the term in regards to animals. I have no issue with the term, factory farm. It describes the practice and the efficiencies involved. But I do object to the inference that they are universally cruel.
Animals are highly adaptable and can be proven to live longer in human maintained conditions than they do in the wild... on average. I say on average only because there might be an exception that I'm unaware of and certainly in individual cases. In zoos and even in confined spaces, domesticated animals will outlive their wild brethren. Even captive animals considered wild will outlive their siblings living in the wild. Is there a quality of life issue? Perhaps more in some cases than others. My point is that confinement does not always equate to abuse. In fact sometimes it is the opposite.
Anyone who knows me well recognizes that I have a special place in my heart for horses and dogs. I advocate for removing all domestic horses from the wild because I consider the feral horse to be abused by being allowed outside of human care. They are a perfect example of how human-maintained conditions for animals can be abusive and still better than what many would argue is more natural. Horses survive well on range that has scant vegetation and little water, and they still die on the free range in greater percentages than horses that are kept in dirt lots and fed so little that we charge their owners with animal abuse. Horses are also very destructive to the lands they populate and those lands’ natural inhabitants.
It has to be said that much of the acreage used as cattle range could never be farmed and that properly populated by cattle, the lands actually see benefit. Cattle graze much like natural populations of wild animals, including bison which have been removed. Cattle for bison is a good trade-off, as they are very similar in how they graze. One of the benefits of grazed range is controlling range fire fuels.
I prefer grass-fed beef, free-range chicken eggs, and factory-farmed pork and chicken for meat. There are pros and cons to all of them and no perfect solutions.
Conditions continue to improve, or at least we humans are less likely to feel guilty. I highly endorse the systems for handling cattle from Temple Grandin. I've never heard an animal complain, but I certainly feel better about many of the recent strategies to ensure less stressed animals and more healthy food.
A small aside to give a short rant... Antibiotics in animal feeds are largely unnecessary and are detrimental to future human use as the diseases they are meant to control continue to evolve. The medications were first used to control those diseases as a preventative. But soon it was learned that animals fed antibiotics would gain weight faster. This created a competitive advantage for the use of antibiotics, and everyone jumped on board. The advantage was lost completely once everyone was feeding antibiotics. So if law required no antibiotic use in feed, the playing field would be level again. This would also mean the threat of evolved disease, antibiotic resistance, would be diminished exponentially. Why our elected officials continue to ignore this is incredible and downright stupidity.
§
Did you know that animals defined as herbivores will often eat meat? I don't mean they go around hunting other animals but that they are opportunists. I have watched horses eat birds they find dead. Do a little research, and you will find plenty of herbivores observed eating meat. There is at least one instance of a captive elephant eating its keeper.
§
The number of food animals that we kill is so small in any time period compared to the total numbers of animal deaths, that it is minuscule. When you combine both animal and plant life on a graph, the food animal deaths would barely register.
Let's all try to recognize that life is precious. All life. But all life feeds on life. I choose to participate. Am I more or less moral for eating plants... and animals? I'll have the New York steak, medium rare, with the Brussel sprouts and baked potato. Lots of butter and extra sour cream, please. At least with the butter and sour cream something wasn't killed.
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
Driving through Wyoming, on a long stretch of very straight road through desolate country, I happened to glance into one of those depressions where a culvert went under the road. An emaciated antelope stood in the lee of the embankment, in an effort to escape the cutting, cold wind. Even though I was cruising along at seventy-plus miles an hour and only glimpsed the creature for a fraction of an instant, my mind has held that image as though it was a famous photograph published in National Geographic magazine. The image of a dying antelope in the middle of nowhere, unseen and unremembered by every other creature... except me.
I have been agonizing on the horns of a dilemma for years because I eat, and I have always been concerned with the morality of it.
But let's be clear. I eat meat. And the issue I have is not with the act of eating an animal with a face but with taking life to eat. I don't know if my feelings make me a food snob or unnecessarily over-concerned. Or maybe callous.
You see, I'm sympathetic to the idea that life has rights. That unnecessary death is something to be avoided. That there is a balance to the natural order, and I should be aware of my place in it.
That doesn't seem like the popularized concept of a meat eater, does it? Well, while I might agree that many people, maybe most, have never really tried to think through their thoughts and feelings concerning food, it seems that lately there is a tribe that assumes they have the moral high ground... when they don't. You see, whether you eat meat or not, animals die. And if you avoid meat as a source of food, death is still part of life.
The big question for me is where death is minimized. Where there is less suffering. Where respect is given and where there is less waste. In my perfect world, there would be no reason for domesticated food. But this is not a perfect world. There are too many people, and people require sustenance. Reality trumps perfection.
§
I grew up with large animals. Some of my earliest memories involve cattle and horses. I've owned two ranches, and in my higher education, I specialized in beef production. You might think this preordains my conclusions, but I have to say that would be wrong. I know ranchers that don't think past the profits they make, but of those I have had contact with, the vast majority weigh the values they bring to using the earth and caring for the animals in their charge. Just as you have to spend time with animals to appreciate and understand them, the same applies to animal people. We all evolve.
One of the things ranchers have to be familiar with is death. It's part of the job. In the civilized world, we insulate ourselves from death, uncomfortable with dying and often in denial of the realities. The antelope I saw by the side of the road, that fleeting instant, informed me that its body would be cold the next morning. The animal would die in the early hours of night. Over the next week or so, largely depending on temperatures, scavengers would feed on what little could be had and the skin that was left would mummify, and the larger bones would be scattered to bleach in the sun.
This is the way it is.
Some people reading this might be horrified that I didn't stop and take the dying antelope into my vehicle and try to get help for it. Or call someone. Or any of several scenarios that would have saved its life in a perfect world. But in my opinion, the natural world is perfect. Even though there are no good deaths in the wild, it is the human world that is skewed toward more and greater agony and most often in the name of human kindness.
Let's be clear. The numbers of animals dying in the world every day, hour, and minute, is staggering. We are horrified by poached elephants and palm-oil-displaced orangutans, at least if we understand the consequences of human overpopulation. But how many deer are killed on the roads? How many field mice are poisoned? How many useful bacteria are killed by unnecessary antibiotics? And truthfully, there are far more natural deaths. Death is a condition of living... period.
How does this apply to domesticated animals intended for food? Well, regardless of whether they go to a slaughter house or if they end their days in a shelter that allows them to die of old age, they still die. Death is a condition of living... period.
§
Let's take a break from the usual arguments that can be made concerning meat.
I have never been “plant blind.” I consider all life to be life and equal in respect to any concerns about ending life. New evidence discovered within the last few decades have verified my concerns.
Plants learn. They make decisions and remember. They protect their siblings and share space and nutrients to ensure that all individuals have a relatively equal chance to mature and survive. They have languages and even dialects. Charles Darwin suspected plants of having specialized cells in their roots to make decisions and process information, and recent findings bear his theories out. Researchers have come to see plants as having bodies much like our own, only reversed by being upside down, with the plant's brain in its roots and backside and sex organs waving in the air.
The more I learn about plants and their capabilities, their capacity for most of the criteria that we reserve for animals, the more they are proven to be as aware and high functioning as creatures that rip them from the ground and chew them up to live.
Remember I mentioned in a perfect world we would not use domesticated food sources? Perhaps you assumed that I meant animals. Plants are factory farmed, too, and far longer than the animals people express so much concern for. Unless you are plant blind, you recognize there are no live foods that don't think, feel, and struggle to survive.
§
Speaking of factory farms, and back to meat, we most often use the term in regards to animals. I have no issue with the term, factory farm. It describes the practice and the efficiencies involved. But I do object to the inference that they are universally cruel.
Animals are highly adaptable and can be proven to live longer in human maintained conditions than they do in the wild... on average. I say on average only because there might be an exception that I'm unaware of and certainly in individual cases. In zoos and even in confined spaces, domesticated animals will outlive their wild brethren. Even captive animals considered wild will outlive their siblings living in the wild. Is there a quality of life issue? Perhaps more in some cases than others. My point is that confinement does not always equate to abuse. In fact sometimes it is the opposite.
Anyone who knows me well recognizes that I have a special place in my heart for horses and dogs. I advocate for removing all domestic horses from the wild because I consider the feral horse to be abused by being allowed outside of human care. They are a perfect example of how human-maintained conditions for animals can be abusive and still better than what many would argue is more natural. Horses survive well on range that has scant vegetation and little water, and they still die on the free range in greater percentages than horses that are kept in dirt lots and fed so little that we charge their owners with animal abuse. Horses are also very destructive to the lands they populate and those lands’ natural inhabitants.
It has to be said that much of the acreage used as cattle range could never be farmed and that properly populated by cattle, the lands actually see benefit. Cattle graze much like natural populations of wild animals, including bison which have been removed. Cattle for bison is a good trade-off, as they are very similar in how they graze. One of the benefits of grazed range is controlling range fire fuels.
I prefer grass-fed beef, free-range chicken eggs, and factory-farmed pork and chicken for meat. There are pros and cons to all of them and no perfect solutions.
Conditions continue to improve, or at least we humans are less likely to feel guilty. I highly endorse the systems for handling cattle from Temple Grandin. I've never heard an animal complain, but I certainly feel better about many of the recent strategies to ensure less stressed animals and more healthy food.
A small aside to give a short rant... Antibiotics in animal feeds are largely unnecessary and are detrimental to future human use as the diseases they are meant to control continue to evolve. The medications were first used to control those diseases as a preventative. But soon it was learned that animals fed antibiotics would gain weight faster. This created a competitive advantage for the use of antibiotics, and everyone jumped on board. The advantage was lost completely once everyone was feeding antibiotics. So if law required no antibiotic use in feed, the playing field would be level again. This would also mean the threat of evolved disease, antibiotic resistance, would be diminished exponentially. Why our elected officials continue to ignore this is incredible and downright stupidity.
§
Did you know that animals defined as herbivores will often eat meat? I don't mean they go around hunting other animals but that they are opportunists. I have watched horses eat birds they find dead. Do a little research, and you will find plenty of herbivores observed eating meat. There is at least one instance of a captive elephant eating its keeper.
§
The number of food animals that we kill is so small in any time period compared to the total numbers of animal deaths, that it is minuscule. When you combine both animal and plant life on a graph, the food animal deaths would barely register.
Let's all try to recognize that life is precious. All life. But all life feeds on life. I choose to participate. Am I more or less moral for eating plants... and animals? I'll have the New York steak, medium rare, with the Brussel sprouts and baked potato. Lots of butter and extra sour cream, please. At least with the butter and sour cream something wasn't killed.
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
June 2, 2017
Lessons in Comicon Cosplay
©2017 Kari Carlisle
I had never felt so out of place wearing jeans and a t-shirt. I’m a jeans-and-a-t-shirt kind of girl, so unless I have to dress up for a special occasion, that’s what you’ll see me wearing. And so, that was my outfit of choice attending Phoenix Comicon. Silly me.
I realized my mistake almost immediately. I knew the group I was going with had costume plans, so that was no surprise to see my companions all wearing costumes depicting characters I did not recognize, mostly from Walking Dead, I was told.
We had a primo parking spot in the garage right next to the convention center. Next to us was a family of Star Wars characters getting ready to head into the Con. Cool.
As we walked toward the entrance, dozens, no hundreds of people dressed in classic sci-fi, horror, anime, and fantasy characters swarmed to get into line. There were steampunkers, “furries” (what are those?!!!), and mashups. A Princess Leia with a stormtrooper helmet. A Darth Vader wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase. Every Doctor was there, the David Tennant version several times over. One really good-looking, muscular Pandoran with thighs and pecs and abs…. Mmmm.
And there I was, wearing my jeans and t-shirt.
The week before, I was in full steampunk for the Greyhound Gathering Parade, and for several days in February through April, I worked at the Arizona Renaissance Faire in full garb, so it’s not like I’m incapable of cosplay. I really thought that cosplay was the exception rather than the rule at Comicon. I was a Comicon virgin.
We enter, and the costume extravaganza continues, some more elaborate than others. Some downright pathetic, but at least they tried. There was a 7-foot Chewbacca. Ghostbusters. Starfleet oOfficers ranging in age from young adult to 80-year-olds. Superheroes. I walked down a hallway and passed about two dozen Deadpools gathered together, just lounging.
Perusing the booths in the exhibit halls, I noticed that many were devoted to cosplay-related merchandise. One could buy full costumes and accessories for just about any character. Some booths were more specialized. One booth had nothing but fur ears. Seriously! Fur ears! Many specialized in steampunk, and I thanked God I had completed my steampunk costume before Comicon, or I would have spent a lot more money.
By mid-afternoon, I reached a point where I was getting used to the spectacle and becoming overwhelmed at the same time. I knew Alan Tudyk was upstairs signing autographs, and while I hadn’t paid for any celebrity autographs or photo ops, it occurred to me that there could be some interesting people-watching to be had in the line to see Alan. It took me about 15 minutes to span the distance of the convention center, and when I arrived, I was disappointed. Apparently, my timing was off. There were only a few people, and none of them were wearing the Firefly outfits I was hoping to get pictures of. But, hey, at least I got to see Alan from a distance. Lookin’ good, Alan!
Around the corner from Alan, the line was forming for autographs with Dick Van Dyke. That was a line worth seeing. Costumes from Mary Poppins and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang were well done, and I realized that Dick Van Dyke’s addition to the Con lineup had only been announced maybe three weeks prior. Now that’s some serious cosplay. These folks had whipped these fabulous costumes together in less than three weeks? Wow.
By early evening I was spent but still had to wait for the rest of my group that I rode with. I spent most of the remainder of my time watching a demonstration of body art. Having seen the short-lived SyFy series, Skin Wars, I was familiar with the concept. Nearly nude models pose for artists who paint the models to the point that they no longer look nude. It’s a bit of a different take on cosplay. The demonstration had six model and artist teams, including one artist who had appeared on Skin Wars. The theme was robots, so it was fun watching human bodies being transformed into their artists’ vision of mechanical beings.
By the time I crawled into bed late that night, I was exhausted, but visions of geekdom continued to swirl around in my head. It was quite an experience. Will I go next year? Undoubtedly. One day did not do it justice, and I know I missed quite a few things I would have enjoyed. Will I cosplay next time? I think I have to.
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
I had never felt so out of place wearing jeans and a t-shirt. I’m a jeans-and-a-t-shirt kind of girl, so unless I have to dress up for a special occasion, that’s what you’ll see me wearing. And so, that was my outfit of choice attending Phoenix Comicon. Silly me.
I realized my mistake almost immediately. I knew the group I was going with had costume plans, so that was no surprise to see my companions all wearing costumes depicting characters I did not recognize, mostly from Walking Dead, I was told.
We had a primo parking spot in the garage right next to the convention center. Next to us was a family of Star Wars characters getting ready to head into the Con. Cool.
As we walked toward the entrance, dozens, no hundreds of people dressed in classic sci-fi, horror, anime, and fantasy characters swarmed to get into line. There were steampunkers, “furries” (what are those?!!!), and mashups. A Princess Leia with a stormtrooper helmet. A Darth Vader wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase. Every Doctor was there, the David Tennant version several times over. One really good-looking, muscular Pandoran with thighs and pecs and abs…. Mmmm.
And there I was, wearing my jeans and t-shirt.
The week before, I was in full steampunk for the Greyhound Gathering Parade, and for several days in February through April, I worked at the Arizona Renaissance Faire in full garb, so it’s not like I’m incapable of cosplay. I really thought that cosplay was the exception rather than the rule at Comicon. I was a Comicon virgin.
We enter, and the costume extravaganza continues, some more elaborate than others. Some downright pathetic, but at least they tried. There was a 7-foot Chewbacca. Ghostbusters. Starfleet oOfficers ranging in age from young adult to 80-year-olds. Superheroes. I walked down a hallway and passed about two dozen Deadpools gathered together, just lounging.
Perusing the booths in the exhibit halls, I noticed that many were devoted to cosplay-related merchandise. One could buy full costumes and accessories for just about any character. Some booths were more specialized. One booth had nothing but fur ears. Seriously! Fur ears! Many specialized in steampunk, and I thanked God I had completed my steampunk costume before Comicon, or I would have spent a lot more money.
By mid-afternoon, I reached a point where I was getting used to the spectacle and becoming overwhelmed at the same time. I knew Alan Tudyk was upstairs signing autographs, and while I hadn’t paid for any celebrity autographs or photo ops, it occurred to me that there could be some interesting people-watching to be had in the line to see Alan. It took me about 15 minutes to span the distance of the convention center, and when I arrived, I was disappointed. Apparently, my timing was off. There were only a few people, and none of them were wearing the Firefly outfits I was hoping to get pictures of. But, hey, at least I got to see Alan from a distance. Lookin’ good, Alan!
Around the corner from Alan, the line was forming for autographs with Dick Van Dyke. That was a line worth seeing. Costumes from Mary Poppins and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang were well done, and I realized that Dick Van Dyke’s addition to the Con lineup had only been announced maybe three weeks prior. Now that’s some serious cosplay. These folks had whipped these fabulous costumes together in less than three weeks? Wow.
By early evening I was spent but still had to wait for the rest of my group that I rode with. I spent most of the remainder of my time watching a demonstration of body art. Having seen the short-lived SyFy series, Skin Wars, I was familiar with the concept. Nearly nude models pose for artists who paint the models to the point that they no longer look nude. It’s a bit of a different take on cosplay. The demonstration had six model and artist teams, including one artist who had appeared on Skin Wars. The theme was robots, so it was fun watching human bodies being transformed into their artists’ vision of mechanical beings.
By the time I crawled into bed late that night, I was exhausted, but visions of geekdom continued to swirl around in my head. It was quite an experience. Will I go next year? Undoubtedly. One day did not do it justice, and I know I missed quite a few things I would have enjoyed. Will I cosplay next time? I think I have to.
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
May 26, 2017
Evolution in Overdrive
©2017 C. Henry Martens
I think evolutionists and geneticists are missing something. Ever since Mendel started growing peas to prove that traits are inherited, and Darwin came up with the idea that environment influenced survival, educated people have seemed to agree that evolution is a slow, tedious, and interminable process that takes generations and perhaps thousands of years to manifest great change.
Perhaps we should consider an alternative concept. That idea being that some fairly sudden and striking change can happen over relatively short times, and within a single generation.
I've recently been intrigued by the reported changes in coloration when foxes are selected for less aggression. Docility seems to be linked to varied appearance. Why this hasn't occurred before is puzzling, as almost all wild animals are fairly uniform in coloration, while domesticated animals can vary greatly.
There are exceptions, but they are really very few and far between. Albinism comes to mind, but that's not really what I mean. Let's take Africa, for instance. If you were to try to find a particular individual in a herd of zebra, based on a difference in color, how would you do it? What about lions? Elephants, rhino, giraffe, gnu, gemsbok, cheetah, dik-dik, crocodile... you get my drift, right? Sure, there are some variations, but most are in being lighter or darker. Male lions’ manes vary in color, but that's the largest example of variation in a really homogeneous population otherwise. Even African wild dogs sport the same colors, and they are the only species I can think of on the African continent that varies wildly in pattern.
Domestic animals, on the other hand can be much more varied. Cattle, horses, cats, dogs, chickens, guinea pigs, and even fish, once domesticated, can change shape and size and vary in color in ways never seen in nature.
But what does that lack of variety in coloration have to do with sudden, gross changes in a species?
Well, going back to those foxes, they still look like a fox... other than being black and white, occasionally spotted, and acting docile and doglike.
This has to be said, too, that dogs represent the species that has proven most adaptable to human controlled selection.
How many generations of dogs are required to go from a gray wolf to a Great Dane, or a chihuahua? Certainly several...
But are there species that exhibit faster changes? If you wanted to reverse the process in a dog, breeding backwards from a chihuahua to create a wolf I would guess you might not ever be successful. Perhaps starting with a husky or malamute might get you there, but I suspect many dog breeds never would.
There has been recent effort in Europe to reverse engineer cattle to create the presently extinct aurochs. Some of the efforts look fairly promising, as the animals become much more uniform in color and pattern.
But again, what makes the idea of sudden change in morphology credible? The examples I've given are all contingent on several generations. Wild horses have retained their present form and variety of colors for over a century, never reverting to an ancient pattern or color scheme, have they?
Well, yes they have. Within the last few decades, a new and fairly consistent coloration has appeared in wild bands in Oregon. The horses seem to be reverting to a consistent dun color, lighter or darker, with stripes on their legs and a dark stripe down their back.
But here again, even though the change appeared suddenly, how can we claim that changes occurred quickly with horses that have lived wild for multiple generations? Well, I think we can claim it, but proving it is something else.
I believe there is a species that proves the point, though, because it reverts to a wild state, and more importantly a wild type, changing physically as well as in color and color pattern within very few generations.
Have you heard about the wild hog explosion in the southern states? Domesticated pigs devolve from their cultivated genetics within very few generations once returned to the wild.
Just as in most domesticated animals, color patterns have been developed to distinguish one breed of pig from another. Durocs are solid red, Yorkshires and Landrace are white, and Hampshires are black with a distinctive white band circling their chests. Universally, the domesticated breeds have thick bodies and large hams and relatively little hair.
When a domesticated pig produces a litter in the wild, though, they change. The wild hogs so recently creating havoc in the southern states are descended from domestic breeds but resemble them very little.
Let me state this clearly... when a pig of any domestic breed is bred with another pig of a recognized domestic breed in a domesticated environment, the result will be a domesticated and uniformly recognized domestic swine. But when a pig goes feral, becoming wild, the offspring will change noticeably with each generation, becoming what we would recognize as a completely undomesticated animal within as few as three generations.
Just for clarity, let me say it another way by way of example. If you were to take a group of domestic pigs and breed them in a farm situation for several generations, you would end up with domesticated pigs in the end. But if you were to take the very same pigs and released them into the wild to fend for themselves, the result after as few as three generations could look like a feral hog that had never come from domesticated stock.
The changes are several. The feral animal becomes less muscular and the body more narrow. The legs lengthen, and the hair becomes more abundant and more course. The face gets longer, and the color is most likely to end up being black. So, I'm not just talking about changes in color but also changes in musculature and significant changes in the bone structure. Changes that would take far longer to reengineer back to a domesticated state under human selection than nature does in creating the feral animal.
I would like to suggest an experiment. In any recent occasion of a pig going feral, they are likely to be breeding with hogs already several generations wild. I would really like to know what would happen if a single breed was released into a contained area without any breeding opportunities with already feral hogs. It would be interesting to document the changes over time with a single breed. Perhaps white pigs would produce white wild offspring if they were denied the opportunity to cross breed. But I suspect that in the end the results would be the same.
While I am using the de-evolution of pigs as an example of gross changes occurring quickly, I am also suggesting that gross changes can occur in the natural world, with naturally evolved species, just as quickly. I don't believe we humans have considered this adequately, mostly because we tend to believe what is accepted unless something is shoved in our faces.
What kind of gross change can occur if an allele suddenly denies one protein trigger to accept a different one? And what would trigger that change?
We certainly haven't experienced a sudden radical change in a large and recognizable species in the hundred and fifty years since Charles Darwin published his illuminating book. But have we been looking?
I know there are areas of the earth that have been combed over for the animals that live there... and yet occasionally something new is found. Often, we assume the new find is something missed or something that has moved in from somewhere else. But how would we know if a new species is really an “old” species overlooked or a truly “new” species?
Maybe the Hogs are giving us a clue, and where did those new stripe-legged horses really come from?
I know that I would like to think animals are finding ways to adapt to a suddenly changing world. I can't wait until we can have an example that proves it.
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
I think evolutionists and geneticists are missing something. Ever since Mendel started growing peas to prove that traits are inherited, and Darwin came up with the idea that environment influenced survival, educated people have seemed to agree that evolution is a slow, tedious, and interminable process that takes generations and perhaps thousands of years to manifest great change.
Perhaps we should consider an alternative concept. That idea being that some fairly sudden and striking change can happen over relatively short times, and within a single generation.
I've recently been intrigued by the reported changes in coloration when foxes are selected for less aggression. Docility seems to be linked to varied appearance. Why this hasn't occurred before is puzzling, as almost all wild animals are fairly uniform in coloration, while domesticated animals can vary greatly.
There are exceptions, but they are really very few and far between. Albinism comes to mind, but that's not really what I mean. Let's take Africa, for instance. If you were to try to find a particular individual in a herd of zebra, based on a difference in color, how would you do it? What about lions? Elephants, rhino, giraffe, gnu, gemsbok, cheetah, dik-dik, crocodile... you get my drift, right? Sure, there are some variations, but most are in being lighter or darker. Male lions’ manes vary in color, but that's the largest example of variation in a really homogeneous population otherwise. Even African wild dogs sport the same colors, and they are the only species I can think of on the African continent that varies wildly in pattern.
Domestic animals, on the other hand can be much more varied. Cattle, horses, cats, dogs, chickens, guinea pigs, and even fish, once domesticated, can change shape and size and vary in color in ways never seen in nature.
But what does that lack of variety in coloration have to do with sudden, gross changes in a species?
Well, going back to those foxes, they still look like a fox... other than being black and white, occasionally spotted, and acting docile and doglike.
This has to be said, too, that dogs represent the species that has proven most adaptable to human controlled selection.
How many generations of dogs are required to go from a gray wolf to a Great Dane, or a chihuahua? Certainly several...
But are there species that exhibit faster changes? If you wanted to reverse the process in a dog, breeding backwards from a chihuahua to create a wolf I would guess you might not ever be successful. Perhaps starting with a husky or malamute might get you there, but I suspect many dog breeds never would.
There has been recent effort in Europe to reverse engineer cattle to create the presently extinct aurochs. Some of the efforts look fairly promising, as the animals become much more uniform in color and pattern.
But again, what makes the idea of sudden change in morphology credible? The examples I've given are all contingent on several generations. Wild horses have retained their present form and variety of colors for over a century, never reverting to an ancient pattern or color scheme, have they?
Well, yes they have. Within the last few decades, a new and fairly consistent coloration has appeared in wild bands in Oregon. The horses seem to be reverting to a consistent dun color, lighter or darker, with stripes on their legs and a dark stripe down their back.
But here again, even though the change appeared suddenly, how can we claim that changes occurred quickly with horses that have lived wild for multiple generations? Well, I think we can claim it, but proving it is something else.
I believe there is a species that proves the point, though, because it reverts to a wild state, and more importantly a wild type, changing physically as well as in color and color pattern within very few generations.
Have you heard about the wild hog explosion in the southern states? Domesticated pigs devolve from their cultivated genetics within very few generations once returned to the wild.
Just as in most domesticated animals, color patterns have been developed to distinguish one breed of pig from another. Durocs are solid red, Yorkshires and Landrace are white, and Hampshires are black with a distinctive white band circling their chests. Universally, the domesticated breeds have thick bodies and large hams and relatively little hair.
When a domesticated pig produces a litter in the wild, though, they change. The wild hogs so recently creating havoc in the southern states are descended from domestic breeds but resemble them very little.
Let me state this clearly... when a pig of any domestic breed is bred with another pig of a recognized domestic breed in a domesticated environment, the result will be a domesticated and uniformly recognized domestic swine. But when a pig goes feral, becoming wild, the offspring will change noticeably with each generation, becoming what we would recognize as a completely undomesticated animal within as few as three generations.
Just for clarity, let me say it another way by way of example. If you were to take a group of domestic pigs and breed them in a farm situation for several generations, you would end up with domesticated pigs in the end. But if you were to take the very same pigs and released them into the wild to fend for themselves, the result after as few as three generations could look like a feral hog that had never come from domesticated stock.
The changes are several. The feral animal becomes less muscular and the body more narrow. The legs lengthen, and the hair becomes more abundant and more course. The face gets longer, and the color is most likely to end up being black. So, I'm not just talking about changes in color but also changes in musculature and significant changes in the bone structure. Changes that would take far longer to reengineer back to a domesticated state under human selection than nature does in creating the feral animal.
I would like to suggest an experiment. In any recent occasion of a pig going feral, they are likely to be breeding with hogs already several generations wild. I would really like to know what would happen if a single breed was released into a contained area without any breeding opportunities with already feral hogs. It would be interesting to document the changes over time with a single breed. Perhaps white pigs would produce white wild offspring if they were denied the opportunity to cross breed. But I suspect that in the end the results would be the same.
While I am using the de-evolution of pigs as an example of gross changes occurring quickly, I am also suggesting that gross changes can occur in the natural world, with naturally evolved species, just as quickly. I don't believe we humans have considered this adequately, mostly because we tend to believe what is accepted unless something is shoved in our faces.
What kind of gross change can occur if an allele suddenly denies one protein trigger to accept a different one? And what would trigger that change?
We certainly haven't experienced a sudden radical change in a large and recognizable species in the hundred and fifty years since Charles Darwin published his illuminating book. But have we been looking?
I know there are areas of the earth that have been combed over for the animals that live there... and yet occasionally something new is found. Often, we assume the new find is something missed or something that has moved in from somewhere else. But how would we know if a new species is really an “old” species overlooked or a truly “new” species?
Maybe the Hogs are giving us a clue, and where did those new stripe-legged horses really come from?
I know that I would like to think animals are finding ways to adapt to a suddenly changing world. I can't wait until we can have an example that proves it.
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
May 19, 2017
Perfect World
©2017 C. Henry Martens
As I sit here, I can hear Rod Serling, “Imagine if you will, a Perfect World.”
The idea of it brings to mind all the fascinating possibilities... immediately followed by what could go wrong if designed by a human being. Even worse, a committee. A Twilight Zone episode if I ever heard one.
Why? Because the natural world already works so well. At least, it used to work. And the glitch in the machine is us.
But let's imagine for the next few minutes that we could improve on what the present situation holds.
Some might see a megalopolis covering the globe with engineering wonders. Tall buildings, broad roads, all efficient and organized and manicured, with flying cars and spaceports and peace because all wants are satisfied. A place where everyone is happy because they all feel useful and secure. A completely unnatural world, even the green spaces weed free and the only animals remaining universally cute. A place where it only rains every other Monday, and you can plan on it.
Is it possible? Not now and probably not ever if we continue on our present path.
Personally, I don't see a sanitized, cultivated, and homogenized environment attractive. I want severe weather, predators, and few guarantees. In fact, I'm going to suggest that if you want the megalopolis, you and I are going to have to figure out a way to make the present world work first. A perfect world is a process first, last, and always, before any end result. We have to survive what we have and leave behind a survivable world for those who follow. Well, unless your priority is yourself. And you might just find out that in making the world work as it is intended, you won't need the overly controlled Utopian dream. You might even prefer a more natural world.
What is the first thing that stands in the way of a perfect world?
Well, to put a fine point on it... human beings.
There are too many of us.
Famine, pollution, over-crowding, over-fishing, health care, elder care, education, housing, home loans, debt, credit cards, fast cars, gangs, racism, oppression, slavery, industry, global warming, politics, war, and fake news...
I'm not saying that these things are exclusive to human beings, only that we have managed to make them into an industry. We are manufacturers of our own environment, and by sheer numbers we magnify these examples by merely being too many.
So, first thing and the highest priority... reduce the population.
Some people see this as horrifying. Some for religious reasons and some for other reasons. We human beings justify our place on the planet in a plethora of ways. I understand. I really do. But beyond all of the cute babies, the pride we take in family, and the rights of people to determine what is best for them, we are in serious denial of reality if we don't acknowledge that too many people threaten the entire human race in the long run.
Now I could suggest several ways to do this or a population number that I see as optimal, but I don't need to do that to get the point across. There are really great ways to manage population if we can agree and implement a change in our attitudes. The sooner the better, as nature also has less attractive solutions already in store for us. We won't dodge forever, and if we think we can, the results will be worse the longer we delude ourselves.
Some people are perfectly happy with the situation as it is. Many claim that education and economic stability is reducing the need for children in developing countries. That technology is keeping up with demands, and that any real issues are with distribution of resources more than anything else. One thing about this view… if only the developed countries are reducing numbers then we leave those not educated to the advantages of a smaller population as the fastest growing population.
The issue is resolving? Okay, if that's the way you want to see it... but I prefer to recognize that a smaller population doesn't have to rely on technology or logistics to solve problems. A smaller population doesn't create the issues in the first place, and those outside the scope of problems that manifest can help more easily.
So let’s say that human numbers are reduced, compassionately, to a level where population is no longer an issue. That means to a number where the earth can cleanse itself using natural systems already in place. What are the consequences?
Technology would still exist. Education and medicine and industry would still be able to flourish, perhaps in ways better than with more people. Certainly, music and art would be more appreciated. The rate of change might slow. Societal pressures would lessen.
A perfect world might be a climate-controlled environment with a dome over it, a cubicle and an assigned task to make you feel useful. A bowl of soylent green and a nightclub without alcohol where everyone dances the same steps to music that is nothing but a heavy, pulsing beat. Where everyone exists under the looming issues of the day, always wondering when...
Or a perfect world might be a place to be an individual with a chance to triumph or make mistakes by your own decisions. A green place that is shared with wildlife and pavement is rare. A place where sweat and education are both valued, and talent has a chance to rise. Where family is measured by close bonds and nights are spent in front of a fireplace with full bellies and an expectation of what the next day holds.
A perfect world exists. We just have to recognize what that means...
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
As I sit here, I can hear Rod Serling, “Imagine if you will, a Perfect World.”
The idea of it brings to mind all the fascinating possibilities... immediately followed by what could go wrong if designed by a human being. Even worse, a committee. A Twilight Zone episode if I ever heard one.
Why? Because the natural world already works so well. At least, it used to work. And the glitch in the machine is us.
But let's imagine for the next few minutes that we could improve on what the present situation holds.
Some might see a megalopolis covering the globe with engineering wonders. Tall buildings, broad roads, all efficient and organized and manicured, with flying cars and spaceports and peace because all wants are satisfied. A place where everyone is happy because they all feel useful and secure. A completely unnatural world, even the green spaces weed free and the only animals remaining universally cute. A place where it only rains every other Monday, and you can plan on it.
Is it possible? Not now and probably not ever if we continue on our present path.
Personally, I don't see a sanitized, cultivated, and homogenized environment attractive. I want severe weather, predators, and few guarantees. In fact, I'm going to suggest that if you want the megalopolis, you and I are going to have to figure out a way to make the present world work first. A perfect world is a process first, last, and always, before any end result. We have to survive what we have and leave behind a survivable world for those who follow. Well, unless your priority is yourself. And you might just find out that in making the world work as it is intended, you won't need the overly controlled Utopian dream. You might even prefer a more natural world.
What is the first thing that stands in the way of a perfect world?
Well, to put a fine point on it... human beings.
There are too many of us.
Famine, pollution, over-crowding, over-fishing, health care, elder care, education, housing, home loans, debt, credit cards, fast cars, gangs, racism, oppression, slavery, industry, global warming, politics, war, and fake news...
I'm not saying that these things are exclusive to human beings, only that we have managed to make them into an industry. We are manufacturers of our own environment, and by sheer numbers we magnify these examples by merely being too many.
So, first thing and the highest priority... reduce the population.
Some people see this as horrifying. Some for religious reasons and some for other reasons. We human beings justify our place on the planet in a plethora of ways. I understand. I really do. But beyond all of the cute babies, the pride we take in family, and the rights of people to determine what is best for them, we are in serious denial of reality if we don't acknowledge that too many people threaten the entire human race in the long run.
Now I could suggest several ways to do this or a population number that I see as optimal, but I don't need to do that to get the point across. There are really great ways to manage population if we can agree and implement a change in our attitudes. The sooner the better, as nature also has less attractive solutions already in store for us. We won't dodge forever, and if we think we can, the results will be worse the longer we delude ourselves.
Some people are perfectly happy with the situation as it is. Many claim that education and economic stability is reducing the need for children in developing countries. That technology is keeping up with demands, and that any real issues are with distribution of resources more than anything else. One thing about this view… if only the developed countries are reducing numbers then we leave those not educated to the advantages of a smaller population as the fastest growing population.
The issue is resolving? Okay, if that's the way you want to see it... but I prefer to recognize that a smaller population doesn't have to rely on technology or logistics to solve problems. A smaller population doesn't create the issues in the first place, and those outside the scope of problems that manifest can help more easily.
So let’s say that human numbers are reduced, compassionately, to a level where population is no longer an issue. That means to a number where the earth can cleanse itself using natural systems already in place. What are the consequences?
Technology would still exist. Education and medicine and industry would still be able to flourish, perhaps in ways better than with more people. Certainly, music and art would be more appreciated. The rate of change might slow. Societal pressures would lessen.
A perfect world might be a climate-controlled environment with a dome over it, a cubicle and an assigned task to make you feel useful. A bowl of soylent green and a nightclub without alcohol where everyone dances the same steps to music that is nothing but a heavy, pulsing beat. Where everyone exists under the looming issues of the day, always wondering when...
Or a perfect world might be a place to be an individual with a chance to triumph or make mistakes by your own decisions. A green place that is shared with wildlife and pavement is rare. A place where sweat and education are both valued, and talent has a chance to rise. Where family is measured by close bonds and nights are spent in front of a fireplace with full bellies and an expectation of what the next day holds.
A perfect world exists. We just have to recognize what that means...
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
May 12, 2017
28 Last Minute Gift Ideas for the Prepper Mom
©2017 Kari Carlisle
No gift for Mom yet? No worries! We’re all busy, and you’re in luck. A quick trip to the local store, and you’ll have a gift for your prepper Mom that she will love and appreciate.
No one knows the mom in your life like you do, but just in case you’re at a complete loss for ideas, it may help to define the qualities of a prepper mom. First of all, she is immensely practical. To her, a gift of chocolates and flowers is a cop out. Jewelry? Forget it. She is the kind of person who lights up when she receives something she can use.
Second, the prepper mom is concerned for her family’s wellbeing. That’s why she’s a prepper! She wants to ensure that no matter what SHTF, her family’s needs will be met. That means that in case of anything from a loss of income to an outright doomsday scenario, her family will have the best opportunity to remain healthy and safe.
Third, the prepper mom is courageous and self-reliant. She’s not the type to rely on someone else to take care of her. She can wield a gun, a knife, and a chain saw as well as a spatula and a frying pan. If she doesn’t know how to do something, she will figure it out. Do not underestimate her.
Instead of just listing gift ideas for you, this gift guide is organized by store for the rural dweller, although city folk will still find this guide helpful. Rural dwellers have limited shopping available to them. I only have convenience stores within a 10 mile radius, grocery and hardware stores in a 40 mile radius, and drug stores, feed stores, and sporting goods stores in a 60-mile radius. So this guide will provide lists of gift ideas you can find according to the stores you have quick access to. This is a “last-minute” gift guide, after all. No time for Amazon Prime.
Convenience StoreCar care kitTravel size first aid supplies for the bug-out bagHard candies for the larder
Grocery StoreCanning suppliesBulk dry goods for the larder (beans, rice, etc.)Canned goods
Hardware StoreRope, string and twine assortmentKnives and scissorsSolar kitGeneratorHand crank flashlight
Drug StoreFirst aid suppliesMedicinesAEDHygiene suppliesCandles and matchesLiquor (for the larder, antiseptic, or trade goods)
Feed StoreGarden tools and seedsChicken wireLivestock medications and suppliesBeekeeping suppliesBooks on animal care
Sporting Goods StoreWater purifierAmmunition and targetsPepper sprayMetal detectorRegister mom for a conceal carry or hunter safety class
What if you absolutely can’t get to a store? Or on an extreme budget? Make Mom a coupon book. I know it’s cliché, but you can un-cliché it by avoiding the standard “one free hug” and “do the dishes for a week” coupons. Make the coupons something the prepper mom will really appreciate, like weeding the garden, cleaning the coop, repairing the fence, chopping wood, etc. And still throw in the free hug, because everyone needs hugs.
Bonus: Now that you have the perfect prepper mom gift, don’t wrap it in wrapping paper. It’s a waste of money. Get something useful to wrap in like a tarp from the hardware store, a blanket from the drug store, or canvas from the feed store, or put it in a new bug-out bag from the sporting goods store.
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
No gift for Mom yet? No worries! We’re all busy, and you’re in luck. A quick trip to the local store, and you’ll have a gift for your prepper Mom that she will love and appreciate.
No one knows the mom in your life like you do, but just in case you’re at a complete loss for ideas, it may help to define the qualities of a prepper mom. First of all, she is immensely practical. To her, a gift of chocolates and flowers is a cop out. Jewelry? Forget it. She is the kind of person who lights up when she receives something she can use.
Second, the prepper mom is concerned for her family’s wellbeing. That’s why she’s a prepper! She wants to ensure that no matter what SHTF, her family’s needs will be met. That means that in case of anything from a loss of income to an outright doomsday scenario, her family will have the best opportunity to remain healthy and safe.
Third, the prepper mom is courageous and self-reliant. She’s not the type to rely on someone else to take care of her. She can wield a gun, a knife, and a chain saw as well as a spatula and a frying pan. If she doesn’t know how to do something, she will figure it out. Do not underestimate her.
Instead of just listing gift ideas for you, this gift guide is organized by store for the rural dweller, although city folk will still find this guide helpful. Rural dwellers have limited shopping available to them. I only have convenience stores within a 10 mile radius, grocery and hardware stores in a 40 mile radius, and drug stores, feed stores, and sporting goods stores in a 60-mile radius. So this guide will provide lists of gift ideas you can find according to the stores you have quick access to. This is a “last-minute” gift guide, after all. No time for Amazon Prime.
Convenience StoreCar care kitTravel size first aid supplies for the bug-out bagHard candies for the larder
Grocery StoreCanning suppliesBulk dry goods for the larder (beans, rice, etc.)Canned goods
Hardware StoreRope, string and twine assortmentKnives and scissorsSolar kitGeneratorHand crank flashlight
Drug StoreFirst aid suppliesMedicinesAEDHygiene suppliesCandles and matchesLiquor (for the larder, antiseptic, or trade goods)
Feed StoreGarden tools and seedsChicken wireLivestock medications and suppliesBeekeeping suppliesBooks on animal care
Sporting Goods StoreWater purifierAmmunition and targetsPepper sprayMetal detectorRegister mom for a conceal carry or hunter safety class
What if you absolutely can’t get to a store? Or on an extreme budget? Make Mom a coupon book. I know it’s cliché, but you can un-cliché it by avoiding the standard “one free hug” and “do the dishes for a week” coupons. Make the coupons something the prepper mom will really appreciate, like weeding the garden, cleaning the coop, repairing the fence, chopping wood, etc. And still throw in the free hug, because everyone needs hugs.
Bonus: Now that you have the perfect prepper mom gift, don’t wrap it in wrapping paper. It’s a waste of money. Get something useful to wrap in like a tarp from the hardware store, a blanket from the drug store, or canvas from the feed store, or put it in a new bug-out bag from the sporting goods store.
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
May 5, 2017
Making a Good Pie: Does Marie Callendar Fit the Bill?
©2017 C. Henry Martens
I LOVE pie. I mean... LOVE, love, love, pie.
Perhaps I was born to love pastry, as it can be argued that my father was the first person to produce a commercially produced cake mix in a box. That first boxed cake mix would be sold in the year 1926. Being a Gypsy Prince (not literally, but figuratively), my father bundled his family about the country from one place to another for the rest of his life and always kept his hands in the business of baking. At one time, he was the Manager of Research and Development at a national do-nut company. So take a guess who my Dad's guinea pigs were? His kids, of course. I'm the one who tried to convince him that a soft cookie, preferably chocolate chip, mimicking a cookie fresh from the oven in consistency was a good idea.
So pie is one of my things... and in this case my favorite of all pastry. You can give me a good strudel, or kuchen, or baklava, and I will dig in and enjoy... but if I have a choice I will choose any kind of fruit pie first, last, and always.
I seek out opportunities to find good pie and will often try pie at an out of the way café or diner if they claim to make their own. Most often I am disappointed.
Somewhere along the way, pie has been homogenized into the same glop almost everywhere I go. With very few exceptions they are thick, doughy, and tasteless crusts filled with thick, syrupy, overly sweet, canned filling in which it is difficult to find a piece of recognizable fruit.
What makes good pie? Well, not glop... either in the crust or in the filling. Let's start with the crust. A good crust is thin, light, flaky, and has flavor. A good crust embraces the filling like a good lover spooning the object of his affections. Above all, it is not thick and doughy. It should provide a counterbalance to the filling and therefore should not be sweet but rather buttery and pleasantly dry without tasting like flour. Occasionally a crust may be dusted with sugar and/or cinnamon to add a little something, but a good crust does not require it.
The filling of good pie is where the sweet comes from. If you make pie at home, you may realize that almost all recipes call for immense amounts of sugar. If all you taste inside a pie is sugar... it is too sweet. Almost all recipes call for too much sugar. Canned filling is too sweet, and the consistency being like a thick syrup is all wrong. Good filling, above all else, allows you to appreciate the flavor of the fruit or flavoring being used. If you are eating an apple pie, or coconut, apricot, or pecan, you must be able to taste the filling and not just the syrup or sweetener. I cut the recipe requirements for sugar in half, or even more, in all recipes.
Good pie has flavor. Again, if it is so sweet that all you taste is sweet, you aren't eating real pie.
Commercial pies fill restaurant bakery goods cases, and they are almost universally thick and doughy crusted, and filled with canned syrup.
But what about Marie Callendar frozen pie?
This morning I baked a pumpkin pie produced by Marie Callendar and had to call the company to complain. I hesitate to say complain, as the pie turned out fine. The issue was that sometime before the pie was frozen and after it was plastic wrapped, the pie was dropped on one side and the filling ended up on only one side as it was frozen.
I consider it good consumerism to let companies know if there is a problem, even if that problem is a one-off kind of mistake. The phone call was answered by a real person, after only a very short wait, and was handled professionally. No complaint there, and I appreciate a company that cares enough to employ real people that are easy to understand.
Once baked, the pumpkin pie turned out fine, the filling moving back to the proper position as it thawed.
In my opinion, Marie Callendar makes some pretty good pie. They have been consistent in keeping their crusts light and flaky and using more fruit and less syrup than most of their competitors. What sweeteners they use are applied conservatively compared to most, too. You can still taste the fruit.
I will say that Marie Callendar pies seem to be getting more sweet recently, but some more than others and not so suddenly that they are overbearing. I suspect that the bean counters are influencing the change, opting for more sales and a larger market instead of quality. I hope the company can resist compromising quality, as if they do, their pie will become just another mass produced pastry-in-a-box.
Short of baking a pie yourself, I believe Marie Callendar produces a better product by far than the average “homemade” pie found in restaurants.
Now, it's time for some pumpkin pie. Where's the whipped cream?
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
I LOVE pie. I mean... LOVE, love, love, pie.
Perhaps I was born to love pastry, as it can be argued that my father was the first person to produce a commercially produced cake mix in a box. That first boxed cake mix would be sold in the year 1926. Being a Gypsy Prince (not literally, but figuratively), my father bundled his family about the country from one place to another for the rest of his life and always kept his hands in the business of baking. At one time, he was the Manager of Research and Development at a national do-nut company. So take a guess who my Dad's guinea pigs were? His kids, of course. I'm the one who tried to convince him that a soft cookie, preferably chocolate chip, mimicking a cookie fresh from the oven in consistency was a good idea.
So pie is one of my things... and in this case my favorite of all pastry. You can give me a good strudel, or kuchen, or baklava, and I will dig in and enjoy... but if I have a choice I will choose any kind of fruit pie first, last, and always.
I seek out opportunities to find good pie and will often try pie at an out of the way café or diner if they claim to make their own. Most often I am disappointed.
Somewhere along the way, pie has been homogenized into the same glop almost everywhere I go. With very few exceptions they are thick, doughy, and tasteless crusts filled with thick, syrupy, overly sweet, canned filling in which it is difficult to find a piece of recognizable fruit.
What makes good pie? Well, not glop... either in the crust or in the filling. Let's start with the crust. A good crust is thin, light, flaky, and has flavor. A good crust embraces the filling like a good lover spooning the object of his affections. Above all, it is not thick and doughy. It should provide a counterbalance to the filling and therefore should not be sweet but rather buttery and pleasantly dry without tasting like flour. Occasionally a crust may be dusted with sugar and/or cinnamon to add a little something, but a good crust does not require it.
The filling of good pie is where the sweet comes from. If you make pie at home, you may realize that almost all recipes call for immense amounts of sugar. If all you taste inside a pie is sugar... it is too sweet. Almost all recipes call for too much sugar. Canned filling is too sweet, and the consistency being like a thick syrup is all wrong. Good filling, above all else, allows you to appreciate the flavor of the fruit or flavoring being used. If you are eating an apple pie, or coconut, apricot, or pecan, you must be able to taste the filling and not just the syrup or sweetener. I cut the recipe requirements for sugar in half, or even more, in all recipes.
Good pie has flavor. Again, if it is so sweet that all you taste is sweet, you aren't eating real pie.
Commercial pies fill restaurant bakery goods cases, and they are almost universally thick and doughy crusted, and filled with canned syrup.
But what about Marie Callendar frozen pie?
This morning I baked a pumpkin pie produced by Marie Callendar and had to call the company to complain. I hesitate to say complain, as the pie turned out fine. The issue was that sometime before the pie was frozen and after it was plastic wrapped, the pie was dropped on one side and the filling ended up on only one side as it was frozen.
I consider it good consumerism to let companies know if there is a problem, even if that problem is a one-off kind of mistake. The phone call was answered by a real person, after only a very short wait, and was handled professionally. No complaint there, and I appreciate a company that cares enough to employ real people that are easy to understand.
Once baked, the pumpkin pie turned out fine, the filling moving back to the proper position as it thawed.
In my opinion, Marie Callendar makes some pretty good pie. They have been consistent in keeping their crusts light and flaky and using more fruit and less syrup than most of their competitors. What sweeteners they use are applied conservatively compared to most, too. You can still taste the fruit.
I will say that Marie Callendar pies seem to be getting more sweet recently, but some more than others and not so suddenly that they are overbearing. I suspect that the bean counters are influencing the change, opting for more sales and a larger market instead of quality. I hope the company can resist compromising quality, as if they do, their pie will become just another mass produced pastry-in-a-box.
Short of baking a pie yourself, I believe Marie Callendar produces a better product by far than the average “homemade” pie found in restaurants.
Now, it's time for some pumpkin pie. Where's the whipped cream?
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
April 28, 2017
What Is the Big Deal About Arbor Day?
©2017 Kari Carlisle
Happy Arbor Day!
Has anyone ever greeted you that way before? How would you respond if they did? Probably with a double-take and maybe a hesitant “Happy Arbor Day” back with a weak smile. And then would you give it another thought? I hope you would. In fact, there are a lot of reasons why you should give very careful consideration to Arbor Day, today and every year forward.
Arbor Day was established to celebrate trees. Here are a few of the reasons trees should be celebrated:
Trees provide oxygenTrees are a line of defense against climate changeTrees provide windbreaks and erosion preventionTrees offer shadeTrees, living and dead, provide habitat for many animals, insects, and other plantsTrees are in some places the only source of building materialsTrees can be a source of fuelWalking in trees fights depression and improves health and brain function (scientifically proven)Forest ecosystems supply an amazing diversity of potential medicinalsMaple syrupCinnamonTrees are beautiful!
What would we do without trees? We cannot survive without them. So what can we do to celebrate Arbor Day? What can we do to make a difference? Here are several ideas:
Plant trees. This is the traditional Arbor Day activity. You can plant trees on your own property, or you can participate in a local tree-planting event. Be sure to select trees that are native to your area. Trees will thrive in their own ecosystem, and you won’t have to water them as much.
Volunteer. If you are near an arboretum and national forest, there are plenty of volunteer opportunities for you to participate in. You can also learn a lot from the experts by working with them side by side.
Go on a paper diet. We watch what we eat because we want to slim down and be as healthy as we can. Consider going on a paper diet to save trees and help forests remain as healthy as they can be. Evaluate all the paper you buy and use. Was it sustainably sourced? Can you read that book or magazine on a device instead of buying it? Make product selections with packaging in mind.
Reuse/Recycle. Paper and wood items may still have some life in them. Reuse whenever possible, and definitely recycle if a program is active in your area.
Review your writing utensils. Are your pencils sustainably sourced?
Learn something new about trees. Go to your local nursery and talk to the staff. Find out more about your native trees and how to care for them. Did you know that the largest tree is named “General Sherman,” located in Sequoia National Park? The oldest tree, a Norway Spruce named “Old Tjikko,” is 9550 years old and located in Sweden. Have you named your trees yet?
Why do trees need our help? Major deforestation in the last hundred plus years has eliminated millions of acres of forest around the world, devastating ecosystems. Add to that the fact that climate change has led to drought-weakened trees succumbing to insect infestation and disease. And not to mention the loss of forest habitat to natural disasters such as hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis, and floods.
Today, if nothing else, wish someone a Happy Arbor Day and see how they react. Maybe you can get someone else thinking…
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
Happy Arbor Day!
Has anyone ever greeted you that way before? How would you respond if they did? Probably with a double-take and maybe a hesitant “Happy Arbor Day” back with a weak smile. And then would you give it another thought? I hope you would. In fact, there are a lot of reasons why you should give very careful consideration to Arbor Day, today and every year forward.
Arbor Day was established to celebrate trees. Here are a few of the reasons trees should be celebrated:
Trees provide oxygenTrees are a line of defense against climate changeTrees provide windbreaks and erosion preventionTrees offer shadeTrees, living and dead, provide habitat for many animals, insects, and other plantsTrees are in some places the only source of building materialsTrees can be a source of fuelWalking in trees fights depression and improves health and brain function (scientifically proven)Forest ecosystems supply an amazing diversity of potential medicinalsMaple syrupCinnamonTrees are beautiful!
What would we do without trees? We cannot survive without them. So what can we do to celebrate Arbor Day? What can we do to make a difference? Here are several ideas:
Plant trees. This is the traditional Arbor Day activity. You can plant trees on your own property, or you can participate in a local tree-planting event. Be sure to select trees that are native to your area. Trees will thrive in their own ecosystem, and you won’t have to water them as much.
Volunteer. If you are near an arboretum and national forest, there are plenty of volunteer opportunities for you to participate in. You can also learn a lot from the experts by working with them side by side.
Go on a paper diet. We watch what we eat because we want to slim down and be as healthy as we can. Consider going on a paper diet to save trees and help forests remain as healthy as they can be. Evaluate all the paper you buy and use. Was it sustainably sourced? Can you read that book or magazine on a device instead of buying it? Make product selections with packaging in mind.
Reuse/Recycle. Paper and wood items may still have some life in them. Reuse whenever possible, and definitely recycle if a program is active in your area.
Review your writing utensils. Are your pencils sustainably sourced?
Learn something new about trees. Go to your local nursery and talk to the staff. Find out more about your native trees and how to care for them. Did you know that the largest tree is named “General Sherman,” located in Sequoia National Park? The oldest tree, a Norway Spruce named “Old Tjikko,” is 9550 years old and located in Sweden. Have you named your trees yet?
Why do trees need our help? Major deforestation in the last hundred plus years has eliminated millions of acres of forest around the world, devastating ecosystems. Add to that the fact that climate change has led to drought-weakened trees succumbing to insect infestation and disease. And not to mention the loss of forest habitat to natural disasters such as hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis, and floods.
Today, if nothing else, wish someone a Happy Arbor Day and see how they react. Maybe you can get someone else thinking…
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
April 21, 2017
Another Unconventional Earth Day
©2017 Kari Carlisle
Does it seem to you that Earth Day this year is particularly significant? Earth Day has been celebrated for decades with local events serving to educate the public about conserving the world’s natural resources. Having been in charge of a large Earth Day event myself, I know how important and rewarding these events are to those who attend them. I strongly urge you to seek one out if you haven’t had the pleasure before.
But something else is going on this year. Organizations that had previously focused on education are turning to advocacy. An international march, centering around the National Mall, is scheduled for this year’s Earth Day, April 22. Called March for Science , the event hopes to reach government officials with the message that science needs to be a factor in the development of legislation. A noble message indeed.
I hate to break it to them. Government has a habit of using science when it suits them and ignoring science when economics or political standing is threatened. Science suits them when new and “better” weapons of war must be created. Not so much when a wall must be built without regard to the local ecosystem (ooh, did I just say that?). I truly wish the marchers luck in their goal.
Whether you plan to spend your Earth Day in education or advocacy or both, there is nothing more worthy. Or is there? I argue there is, and this other option can achieve both education and advocacy in the long run.
My sixth-grade school (I went to a lot of schools growing up) was awesome. A “pod layout” school, the classroom environment was designed for students to learn and achieve goals at their own pace. I remember thriving in the freedom, given the independence to grow. What was incredibly effective, at least for that age, was that we were guided in discovering knowledge through experience, not lectures, not assignments, not homework. We actually DID stuff. I studied crayfish behavior. I wrote a science fiction book. I educated others about the dangers of pollution. The things we did in sixth grade were not typical of any of the other schools I ever went to, and those experiences shaped me in ways that stick with me to this day.
Why am I telling you about my sixth-grade experience? This is the kind of activity that is worthier than most Earth Day activities. The opportunity to do something that will make a difference – in your own life, in your environment, in the lives of your loved ones – is extraordinarily powerful and has ultimately more impact. By all means, learn everything you can about climate change, endangered species, and solar power. By all means, do march and tell your legislators how to set policy. These are vital activities. But this Earth Day, find something you can participate in that will transform you and will make a positive impact on the earth. And make it a regular habit.
The summer after high school, I got a seasonal job with the Youth Conservation Corps. We maintained trails, built sidewalks, picked up garbage, repaired park infrastructure, and at the same time learned about ecosystems, native plants, and the importance of waterways. In just three months of hard work and inspiring lessons from our supervisor, I developed a life-long desire to keep learning and doing things for our environment.
If you are a regular Apocalypse Observer reader, you may remember I’ve written a few posts about trash pickup and recycling, and so has C. Henry Martens, for that matter. If you don’t know where to start, do a search for Earth Day events in your area. Wildlife refuges especially seem to have cleanups, native plantings, and noxious weed pullings. You can also look for events at parks, zoos, and other environmental organizations. Another fun and useful event is a BioBlitz. If you can find one of those, do it!
If you have done these kinds of activities, please tell us about what you did and how it impacted you. Also, share with us what you have planned for Earth Day this year.
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
Does it seem to you that Earth Day this year is particularly significant? Earth Day has been celebrated for decades with local events serving to educate the public about conserving the world’s natural resources. Having been in charge of a large Earth Day event myself, I know how important and rewarding these events are to those who attend them. I strongly urge you to seek one out if you haven’t had the pleasure before.
But something else is going on this year. Organizations that had previously focused on education are turning to advocacy. An international march, centering around the National Mall, is scheduled for this year’s Earth Day, April 22. Called March for Science , the event hopes to reach government officials with the message that science needs to be a factor in the development of legislation. A noble message indeed.
I hate to break it to them. Government has a habit of using science when it suits them and ignoring science when economics or political standing is threatened. Science suits them when new and “better” weapons of war must be created. Not so much when a wall must be built without regard to the local ecosystem (ooh, did I just say that?). I truly wish the marchers luck in their goal.
Whether you plan to spend your Earth Day in education or advocacy or both, there is nothing more worthy. Or is there? I argue there is, and this other option can achieve both education and advocacy in the long run.
My sixth-grade school (I went to a lot of schools growing up) was awesome. A “pod layout” school, the classroom environment was designed for students to learn and achieve goals at their own pace. I remember thriving in the freedom, given the independence to grow. What was incredibly effective, at least for that age, was that we were guided in discovering knowledge through experience, not lectures, not assignments, not homework. We actually DID stuff. I studied crayfish behavior. I wrote a science fiction book. I educated others about the dangers of pollution. The things we did in sixth grade were not typical of any of the other schools I ever went to, and those experiences shaped me in ways that stick with me to this day.
Why am I telling you about my sixth-grade experience? This is the kind of activity that is worthier than most Earth Day activities. The opportunity to do something that will make a difference – in your own life, in your environment, in the lives of your loved ones – is extraordinarily powerful and has ultimately more impact. By all means, learn everything you can about climate change, endangered species, and solar power. By all means, do march and tell your legislators how to set policy. These are vital activities. But this Earth Day, find something you can participate in that will transform you and will make a positive impact on the earth. And make it a regular habit.
The summer after high school, I got a seasonal job with the Youth Conservation Corps. We maintained trails, built sidewalks, picked up garbage, repaired park infrastructure, and at the same time learned about ecosystems, native plants, and the importance of waterways. In just three months of hard work and inspiring lessons from our supervisor, I developed a life-long desire to keep learning and doing things for our environment.
If you are a regular Apocalypse Observer reader, you may remember I’ve written a few posts about trash pickup and recycling, and so has C. Henry Martens, for that matter. If you don’t know where to start, do a search for Earth Day events in your area. Wildlife refuges especially seem to have cleanups, native plantings, and noxious weed pullings. You can also look for events at parks, zoos, and other environmental organizations. Another fun and useful event is a BioBlitz. If you can find one of those, do it!
If you have done these kinds of activities, please tell us about what you did and how it impacted you. Also, share with us what you have planned for Earth Day this year.
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
April 14, 2017
How YOU Can Prevent the Teeny Tiny Apocalypse
©2017 Kari Carlisle
While the rest of the world is worried about zombies, aliens, robots, and meteors, we may need to reflect for a moment on how our world may end by the proliferation of things unseen – the very teeny tiny things that can wreak havoc on our bodies and our environment.
While we may not as individuals be able to stem the tide of teeny tiny things and prevent a global apocalypse, we still need to learn about these things and how they may affect our little section of the world. The good news is there are some things we can do as individuals to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and hopefully make some impact on our world.
Teeny Tiny Thing #1: ChemicalsHuman ingenuity has created a plethora of artificial, microscopic compounds that can kill, preserve, color, and enhance through medicine, food, household products, personal products, and so much more. The world was horrified this week with the use of chemical weapons in Syria. At the same time, many chemicals are quite benign… or are they? Most of the chemicals in use today, about 84,000 total, have not been tested for toxicity or carcinogenic properties. Personally, I prefer to avoid chemicals altogether. It just seems to me that eating, breathing and drinking chemicals of any kind is not something our bodies can and should be expected to handle to the degree that we ask them to. My advice to you is eat, drink, and breathe as cleanly as you can, avoiding smoking, unnatural household cleaners, and artificial ingredients in your food and personal care products. We cannot avoid chemicals completely, but reducing our exposure will have a positive impact on our health and environment.
Teeny Tiny Thing #2: GMO’sGenetically Modified Organisms – Are they the solution to world hunger? Can they eradicate diseases? Can they save animals from extinction? Yes, if you believe the companies working hard to alter the structure of DNA. Yes, if you continue to let the well-funded politicians turn a blind eye. Maybe yes, but at what cost? GMO’s are being banned in countries all over the world, but in the U.S., they are embraced as the scientific solution to many problems. Even if studies showing massive tumor production in rats fed GMO’s are wrong, it absolutely scares me that people think they know what they are doing with the DNA sequence and what the ultimate ramifications of altering it will be. The genome sequence is not a static thing. How genes get turned on and off, and even how they affect adjacent genes and why they sit where they do in the sequence, is not completely understood. And yet we are messing with it based on the end results. Although mutations do occur in nature, natural mutations are usually selected out in natural selection, i.e. they are not beneficial to the species. Humans are creating mutations through GMO’s that are also selected out. They must keep enforcing the mutation. I say, let’s stop this madness and let nature rule. In the meantime, educate yourself about the plants and animals being genetically modified and avoid using/eating them. I’ll get you started. The top two are corn and soy. Go organic.
Teeny Tiny Thing #3: PathogensFrom the beginning of complex life, viruses, bacterium, and parasites have killed millions and continue to plague the earth. Amazing advances in treatment have saved millions, but the fear of an antibiotic apocalypse looms. The truth is we don’t know when the next “superbug” will mutate, defy attempts at treatment, and become the next Black Plague, reducing human population to a fraction. Even if a pathogen does not kill you, it can still make your life miserable for a while or even for the rest of your life. As they say, the best medicine is prevention, so I recommend a lifestyle that supports your natural immune system. Get plenty of exercise and sleep, eat real food (not processed), consume probiotics (through fermented foods is best), promote vitamin D production through sun exposure, and avoid unnecessary antibiotic use. Or you can just hope the medical community stays ahead of things.
Teeny Tiny Thing #4: MicroplasticsOh, dear. What are microplastics, and why should we be concerned? Plastic is one of those “benign” things created by humans to make our lives better. Ha. They leach chemicals into our food and drinks, and they off gas chemicals into the air that affect our endocrine systems. But all that aside, plastics never truly break down, i.e. they are not earth-friendly. They end up in landfills and pollute the oceans, eventually breaking down into miniscule particles… microplastics. Then they don’t cause any problems, right? Wrong. They are consumed by many organisms, especially oceanic creatures, accumulating in their bodies, causing health problems, reducing buoyancy in marine life, acting as vectors for disease, disrupting ecosystems, and sometimes causing death by malnutrition. As these microplastics work their way through the food chain, don’t think it won’t affect you. Think about that next time you have a tuna melt. Sadly, humans are the very cause of this microplastic apocalypse. Please reduce your plastic “footprint.” And I’m not just talking about your plastic grocery bags (although those are very very bad). Microplastics come from clothing, cosmetics, medicines, and much more. Do a little research and come up with some plastics you can live without.
Teeny Tiny Thing #5: NanobotsSurely, we are in no danger of a nanobot apocalypse! Think again. Remember those scientists working on GMO’s, messing with DNA that we don’t fully understand? Well, now we have scientists planning on saving the world with nanobots. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Mini robots that will be injected into living creatures, mainly humans, to attack cancer, conduct internal surgery, kill pathogens (yay, we don’t have to support our immune systems with all that hard work of a healthy lifestyle!), and generally fix all that ails us. What happens when they malfunction and start targeting healthy tissue? Add artificial intelligence into the mix, and we run the risk that the nanobots will decide to do something on their own. Of course, they will be designed to make advantageous (for us) decisions, but will we lose control of our creation? Furthermore, nanobots won’t leave when they’re done. They’ll stay in there, move from organism to organism through ingestion and bodily fluid exchange, and eventually they will be found in every organism on earth, doing who knows what. We may not be in immediate danger of a nanobot apocalypse, but be wary when your doctor informs you of this great new clinical study for your gerd.
I hope I didn’t scare you too much – just enough to take some action. We really need to take these threats seriously, because unchecked, they absolutely will eventually lead to drastic consequences for life on earth.
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
While the rest of the world is worried about zombies, aliens, robots, and meteors, we may need to reflect for a moment on how our world may end by the proliferation of things unseen – the very teeny tiny things that can wreak havoc on our bodies and our environment.
While we may not as individuals be able to stem the tide of teeny tiny things and prevent a global apocalypse, we still need to learn about these things and how they may affect our little section of the world. The good news is there are some things we can do as individuals to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and hopefully make some impact on our world.
Teeny Tiny Thing #1: ChemicalsHuman ingenuity has created a plethora of artificial, microscopic compounds that can kill, preserve, color, and enhance through medicine, food, household products, personal products, and so much more. The world was horrified this week with the use of chemical weapons in Syria. At the same time, many chemicals are quite benign… or are they? Most of the chemicals in use today, about 84,000 total, have not been tested for toxicity or carcinogenic properties. Personally, I prefer to avoid chemicals altogether. It just seems to me that eating, breathing and drinking chemicals of any kind is not something our bodies can and should be expected to handle to the degree that we ask them to. My advice to you is eat, drink, and breathe as cleanly as you can, avoiding smoking, unnatural household cleaners, and artificial ingredients in your food and personal care products. We cannot avoid chemicals completely, but reducing our exposure will have a positive impact on our health and environment.
Teeny Tiny Thing #2: GMO’sGenetically Modified Organisms – Are they the solution to world hunger? Can they eradicate diseases? Can they save animals from extinction? Yes, if you believe the companies working hard to alter the structure of DNA. Yes, if you continue to let the well-funded politicians turn a blind eye. Maybe yes, but at what cost? GMO’s are being banned in countries all over the world, but in the U.S., they are embraced as the scientific solution to many problems. Even if studies showing massive tumor production in rats fed GMO’s are wrong, it absolutely scares me that people think they know what they are doing with the DNA sequence and what the ultimate ramifications of altering it will be. The genome sequence is not a static thing. How genes get turned on and off, and even how they affect adjacent genes and why they sit where they do in the sequence, is not completely understood. And yet we are messing with it based on the end results. Although mutations do occur in nature, natural mutations are usually selected out in natural selection, i.e. they are not beneficial to the species. Humans are creating mutations through GMO’s that are also selected out. They must keep enforcing the mutation. I say, let’s stop this madness and let nature rule. In the meantime, educate yourself about the plants and animals being genetically modified and avoid using/eating them. I’ll get you started. The top two are corn and soy. Go organic.
Teeny Tiny Thing #3: PathogensFrom the beginning of complex life, viruses, bacterium, and parasites have killed millions and continue to plague the earth. Amazing advances in treatment have saved millions, but the fear of an antibiotic apocalypse looms. The truth is we don’t know when the next “superbug” will mutate, defy attempts at treatment, and become the next Black Plague, reducing human population to a fraction. Even if a pathogen does not kill you, it can still make your life miserable for a while or even for the rest of your life. As they say, the best medicine is prevention, so I recommend a lifestyle that supports your natural immune system. Get plenty of exercise and sleep, eat real food (not processed), consume probiotics (through fermented foods is best), promote vitamin D production through sun exposure, and avoid unnecessary antibiotic use. Or you can just hope the medical community stays ahead of things.
Teeny Tiny Thing #4: MicroplasticsOh, dear. What are microplastics, and why should we be concerned? Plastic is one of those “benign” things created by humans to make our lives better. Ha. They leach chemicals into our food and drinks, and they off gas chemicals into the air that affect our endocrine systems. But all that aside, plastics never truly break down, i.e. they are not earth-friendly. They end up in landfills and pollute the oceans, eventually breaking down into miniscule particles… microplastics. Then they don’t cause any problems, right? Wrong. They are consumed by many organisms, especially oceanic creatures, accumulating in their bodies, causing health problems, reducing buoyancy in marine life, acting as vectors for disease, disrupting ecosystems, and sometimes causing death by malnutrition. As these microplastics work their way through the food chain, don’t think it won’t affect you. Think about that next time you have a tuna melt. Sadly, humans are the very cause of this microplastic apocalypse. Please reduce your plastic “footprint.” And I’m not just talking about your plastic grocery bags (although those are very very bad). Microplastics come from clothing, cosmetics, medicines, and much more. Do a little research and come up with some plastics you can live without.
Teeny Tiny Thing #5: NanobotsSurely, we are in no danger of a nanobot apocalypse! Think again. Remember those scientists working on GMO’s, messing with DNA that we don’t fully understand? Well, now we have scientists planning on saving the world with nanobots. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Mini robots that will be injected into living creatures, mainly humans, to attack cancer, conduct internal surgery, kill pathogens (yay, we don’t have to support our immune systems with all that hard work of a healthy lifestyle!), and generally fix all that ails us. What happens when they malfunction and start targeting healthy tissue? Add artificial intelligence into the mix, and we run the risk that the nanobots will decide to do something on their own. Of course, they will be designed to make advantageous (for us) decisions, but will we lose control of our creation? Furthermore, nanobots won’t leave when they’re done. They’ll stay in there, move from organism to organism through ingestion and bodily fluid exchange, and eventually they will be found in every organism on earth, doing who knows what. We may not be in immediate danger of a nanobot apocalypse, but be wary when your doctor informs you of this great new clinical study for your gerd.
I hope I didn’t scare you too much – just enough to take some action. We really need to take these threats seriously, because unchecked, they absolutely will eventually lead to drastic consequences for life on earth.
Click here to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
To comment, scroll down and type in your comment. Under Comment As, you can select Anonymous or Name/URL (you don't need to enter a URL). Then hit Publish.
