C. Henry Martens's Blog, page 16
May 13, 2016
Being the Bad Guy
©2016 Kari Carlisle
What’s a story without a bad guy? Granted, the “bad guy” could be something other than a person, such as a natural disaster or aliens or even one’s own subconscious. The point is every story needs someone or something for the protagonist to conflict with, i.e. the antagonist. This is story-writing 101.
I started thinking about this while watching the red carpet interviews of the cast of Outlander for their second season. It was a little thrilling to hear the actors’ perspectives, especially those who play the two main protagonists, Claire and Jamie. Then, suddenly, the actor who plays the antagonist, Tobias Menzies, stepped up to the interviewer and began answering questions about what it’s like to play his character, Jack Randall.
Now, if you are not familiar with Outlander, I promise no spoilers. Suffice it to say, the antagonist is about as psychotically evil as one can be. Let’s just say, he is not someone whose attention you want to attract for any reason. Because God-forbid he should take an interest in you. You will not psychological survive a relationship with him, and he will believe that his actions are 100% not only justified, but pure. Oh, he knows he causes pain and suffering, but to him it’s a beautiful thing.
Back to Menzies’ interview. He talked about the story and how his role in the story is so important. Inside, I begged him to please say something, or even flash a big, charming smile, something that would re-humanize him, the actor, in my mind. You see, it was my bed-time, and I really didn’t want to go to sleep having the man’s face be the last thing I see before dreams, nightmares, took over.
But he didn’t. His interview over, I was left wondering what is this person like in real life? He did nothing to dispel the overwhelming feeling I had that this person IS his character. That this evil person is roaming the earth, the same earth I occupy, and not just a character in a TV show. I begged him, I really did. Why didn’t he become the “good guy” in real life?
I have forgiven every other bad guy. If I met James Earl Jones, I would give the big lug a bear hug. When Alan Rickman passed a few weeks ago, I literally cried. How do the “bad guys” get forgiven, but I could not bring myself to see the real person behind the Randall character?
Perhaps only time, and other less evil roles, will put Tobias Menzies in a better place in my mind. For now, he will have to take my feelings as the highest compliment – that he is perhaps one of the best actors who ever played an antagonist. To the point where I cannot separate the fiction from the reality. Kudos.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
What’s a story without a bad guy? Granted, the “bad guy” could be something other than a person, such as a natural disaster or aliens or even one’s own subconscious. The point is every story needs someone or something for the protagonist to conflict with, i.e. the antagonist. This is story-writing 101.
I started thinking about this while watching the red carpet interviews of the cast of Outlander for their second season. It was a little thrilling to hear the actors’ perspectives, especially those who play the two main protagonists, Claire and Jamie. Then, suddenly, the actor who plays the antagonist, Tobias Menzies, stepped up to the interviewer and began answering questions about what it’s like to play his character, Jack Randall.
Now, if you are not familiar with Outlander, I promise no spoilers. Suffice it to say, the antagonist is about as psychotically evil as one can be. Let’s just say, he is not someone whose attention you want to attract for any reason. Because God-forbid he should take an interest in you. You will not psychological survive a relationship with him, and he will believe that his actions are 100% not only justified, but pure. Oh, he knows he causes pain and suffering, but to him it’s a beautiful thing.
Back to Menzies’ interview. He talked about the story and how his role in the story is so important. Inside, I begged him to please say something, or even flash a big, charming smile, something that would re-humanize him, the actor, in my mind. You see, it was my bed-time, and I really didn’t want to go to sleep having the man’s face be the last thing I see before dreams, nightmares, took over.
But he didn’t. His interview over, I was left wondering what is this person like in real life? He did nothing to dispel the overwhelming feeling I had that this person IS his character. That this evil person is roaming the earth, the same earth I occupy, and not just a character in a TV show. I begged him, I really did. Why didn’t he become the “good guy” in real life?
I have forgiven every other bad guy. If I met James Earl Jones, I would give the big lug a bear hug. When Alan Rickman passed a few weeks ago, I literally cried. How do the “bad guys” get forgiven, but I could not bring myself to see the real person behind the Randall character?
Perhaps only time, and other less evil roles, will put Tobias Menzies in a better place in my mind. For now, he will have to take my feelings as the highest compliment – that he is perhaps one of the best actors who ever played an antagonist. To the point where I cannot separate the fiction from the reality. Kudos.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
May 6, 2016
5 Worst Movie Moms
©2016 Kari Carlisle
We all love our moms, right? At least we have to on Mother’s Day, whether we feel like it or not. Women, especially, have an interesting relationship with our mothers. We love them, but we fear turning into them, don’t we, ladies? It took my mom’s passing to get over my fear of turning into her and not only appreciate but embrace the little behaviors that make me think, I’m turning into my mother!
Well, just for the fun of it, I put together this short little countdown of worst movie moms. Maybe it will give someone out there a little perspective to realize their mother isn’t so bad.
5. Stifler’s Mom
Moms are not supposed to seduce your friends. Period. Although, Jennifer Coolidge is hysterical in American Pie’s take on The Graduate. Bad mom!
4. Monica Swinton
You don’t even recognize her name, do you? She’s David’s mom in Artificial Intelligence: A.I. She’s number 4 in my countdown because she abandoned her son. Okay, yeah, I know he’s just a robot, right? But of course if you watched the entire, grueling movie (that I thought should have ended before the 2-hour mark), you believed that he had become conscious. And if you believed it by the end of an, albeit, ridiculously long movie, and if the aliens believed it after just meeting him, certainly she believed it after welcoming him into their home and loving him as their son for how many years? Bad, bad mom!
3. Mrs. Bates
Okay, it’s all in Norman’s head, but how did it get there? His mother must have been as overbearing as he believes she still is. Overbearing enough to make him go Psycho and kill people. Very bad mom!
2. Margaret White
Talk about overbearing moms. Carrie’s mom is a religious fanatic and definitely mentally unstable. The worst thing? She doesn’t give Carrie “the talk” about puberty, and Carrie gets her first period and thinks she’s dying. Then she starts killing people. Really very bad mom!
And my number 1 worst movie mom is…
Eleanor Crisp
Hers is a relatively small role in a very funny movie, Kindergarten Cop. What makes her my number one is that she’s so subtly and realistically passive aggressive. She is the driving force behind her son’s search for his son. She is the little devil sitting on her son’s shoulder, and with his full attention. In one scene she purchases a large amount of over-the-counter meds for her grandson.
Cullen Crisp: The boy's not sick.
Eleanor Crisp: Doesn't hurt to take precautions.
Cullen Crisp: Mother, you are going to make him sick. You stuffed all this crap down my throat for years, and there was nothing wrong with me!
Eleanor Crisp: That's why there was nothing wrong with you.
Cullen Crisp: Now, how can you argue with that?
Gives me the shivers. And of course her son turns into a psychotic criminal, and people die, and his own son is traumatized at having to be on the run from him. Really, really, bad, bad mom!
I hope you enjoyed my list of worst movie moms. If you think of other bad movie moms, please let me know in the comments.
And do me a favor and give your mom an extra hug this weekend for me, okay? I wish I could hug mine again. Hopefully, I will dream of her.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
We all love our moms, right? At least we have to on Mother’s Day, whether we feel like it or not. Women, especially, have an interesting relationship with our mothers. We love them, but we fear turning into them, don’t we, ladies? It took my mom’s passing to get over my fear of turning into her and not only appreciate but embrace the little behaviors that make me think, I’m turning into my mother!
Well, just for the fun of it, I put together this short little countdown of worst movie moms. Maybe it will give someone out there a little perspective to realize their mother isn’t so bad.
5. Stifler’s Mom
Moms are not supposed to seduce your friends. Period. Although, Jennifer Coolidge is hysterical in American Pie’s take on The Graduate. Bad mom!
4. Monica Swinton
You don’t even recognize her name, do you? She’s David’s mom in Artificial Intelligence: A.I. She’s number 4 in my countdown because she abandoned her son. Okay, yeah, I know he’s just a robot, right? But of course if you watched the entire, grueling movie (that I thought should have ended before the 2-hour mark), you believed that he had become conscious. And if you believed it by the end of an, albeit, ridiculously long movie, and if the aliens believed it after just meeting him, certainly she believed it after welcoming him into their home and loving him as their son for how many years? Bad, bad mom!
3. Mrs. Bates
Okay, it’s all in Norman’s head, but how did it get there? His mother must have been as overbearing as he believes she still is. Overbearing enough to make him go Psycho and kill people. Very bad mom!
2. Margaret White
Talk about overbearing moms. Carrie’s mom is a religious fanatic and definitely mentally unstable. The worst thing? She doesn’t give Carrie “the talk” about puberty, and Carrie gets her first period and thinks she’s dying. Then she starts killing people. Really very bad mom!
And my number 1 worst movie mom is…
Eleanor Crisp
Hers is a relatively small role in a very funny movie, Kindergarten Cop. What makes her my number one is that she’s so subtly and realistically passive aggressive. She is the driving force behind her son’s search for his son. She is the little devil sitting on her son’s shoulder, and with his full attention. In one scene she purchases a large amount of over-the-counter meds for her grandson.
Cullen Crisp: The boy's not sick.
Eleanor Crisp: Doesn't hurt to take precautions.
Cullen Crisp: Mother, you are going to make him sick. You stuffed all this crap down my throat for years, and there was nothing wrong with me!
Eleanor Crisp: That's why there was nothing wrong with you.
Cullen Crisp: Now, how can you argue with that?
Gives me the shivers. And of course her son turns into a psychotic criminal, and people die, and his own son is traumatized at having to be on the run from him. Really, really, bad, bad mom!
I hope you enjoyed my list of worst movie moms. If you think of other bad movie moms, please let me know in the comments.
And do me a favor and give your mom an extra hug this weekend for me, okay? I wish I could hug mine again. Hopefully, I will dream of her.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
April 29, 2016
Science for the Curious
©2016 C. Henry Martens
Science for the Curious
I don’t often consider a magazine published by anyone worthy of special notice. Sure, I enjoy several when I go to an office with a waiting room, but I rarely subscribe. They are both expensive, considering what information you get, and time consuming as you try to find the nuggets of value inside their pages. The magazine, Discover, is an exception to both of those gripes I have with mass marketed periodicals.
I am a guy who specializes in nothing, the proverbial jack-of-all-trades, but a science geek nonetheless. I am curious about everything. So when I pick up something to read, I enjoy finding something that stimulates my brain.
Many magazines fail miserably in that regard. First, how many ways can you combine flour, sugar, and some kind of liquid to make something that isn’t very good for your body? Second, a lot of the information people get paid to write, professionally, is another rehash of the last rehash rerehashed. I swear that many of the magazines go by the same operating ethic that most high school students work under… in other words, wait until the last possible moment, and then stay up all night filling the paper with as many words as are required.
This is not to say that all magazines are written that way. There are several that work diligently at their craft, and I congratulate their editors and staff for producing excellence. National Geographic, Smithsonian, Motor Trend, and a very few others come to mind.
The cream of this crop, though, is Discover… and here is why.
My greatest pleasure in reading is to be undistracted while reading quality. So although Discover pays for its own publication through advertising, like all other magazines, it does not chop up the articles in its pages so that you have to search for the later paragraphs hidden somewhere in the back. Each article is complete from front to back. Such a simple idea, and so welcome.
The content of the publication is exceptional as well. Variety is said to be the spice of life, and Discover gives their full share of spice to their effort. Astronomy shares space with Anthropology, Entomology follows Psychology, and genetically modified organisms compete for space on the page with cures and strategies in dealing with Ebola. The subject matter is a panoply of the interesting, bizarre, and worthwhile. If you can’t find several articles in each issue that tweak your interest, you should check your pulse.
In order to cram as much as possible into each issue, the magazine is laid out with several concise essays that are condensed information in a small space.
If I were to have one gripe with Discover, it is that they follow one of the same formulas as all of the other magazines published by major publishers… they eschew any mention or critique of independent authors in their book reviews. I would dearly love to have them review my own work, but alas, I am not part of that system.
You don’t find Discover in many offices. You should, IMO, but traditionalists go with what they grew up with. Discover is a better magazine than that. I suggest you investigate and consider a subscription. The editors and staff deserve your look at them. You will not be disappointed.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
Science for the Curious
I don’t often consider a magazine published by anyone worthy of special notice. Sure, I enjoy several when I go to an office with a waiting room, but I rarely subscribe. They are both expensive, considering what information you get, and time consuming as you try to find the nuggets of value inside their pages. The magazine, Discover, is an exception to both of those gripes I have with mass marketed periodicals.
I am a guy who specializes in nothing, the proverbial jack-of-all-trades, but a science geek nonetheless. I am curious about everything. So when I pick up something to read, I enjoy finding something that stimulates my brain.
Many magazines fail miserably in that regard. First, how many ways can you combine flour, sugar, and some kind of liquid to make something that isn’t very good for your body? Second, a lot of the information people get paid to write, professionally, is another rehash of the last rehash rerehashed. I swear that many of the magazines go by the same operating ethic that most high school students work under… in other words, wait until the last possible moment, and then stay up all night filling the paper with as many words as are required.
This is not to say that all magazines are written that way. There are several that work diligently at their craft, and I congratulate their editors and staff for producing excellence. National Geographic, Smithsonian, Motor Trend, and a very few others come to mind.
The cream of this crop, though, is Discover… and here is why.
My greatest pleasure in reading is to be undistracted while reading quality. So although Discover pays for its own publication through advertising, like all other magazines, it does not chop up the articles in its pages so that you have to search for the later paragraphs hidden somewhere in the back. Each article is complete from front to back. Such a simple idea, and so welcome.
The content of the publication is exceptional as well. Variety is said to be the spice of life, and Discover gives their full share of spice to their effort. Astronomy shares space with Anthropology, Entomology follows Psychology, and genetically modified organisms compete for space on the page with cures and strategies in dealing with Ebola. The subject matter is a panoply of the interesting, bizarre, and worthwhile. If you can’t find several articles in each issue that tweak your interest, you should check your pulse.
In order to cram as much as possible into each issue, the magazine is laid out with several concise essays that are condensed information in a small space.
If I were to have one gripe with Discover, it is that they follow one of the same formulas as all of the other magazines published by major publishers… they eschew any mention or critique of independent authors in their book reviews. I would dearly love to have them review my own work, but alas, I am not part of that system.
You don’t find Discover in many offices. You should, IMO, but traditionalists go with what they grew up with. Discover is a better magazine than that. I suggest you investigate and consider a subscription. The editors and staff deserve your look at them. You will not be disappointed.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
April 22, 2016
Unconventional Earth Day
©2016 Kari Carlisle
Earth Day, which falls on April 22 every year, is a great reminder for us to think about how our actions affect the earth. Beyond the usual Reduce, Reuse, Recycle mantra (don’t get me wrong – these are important), here are a few unconventional things you can do to celebrate Earth Day.
Xeriscape – Xeriscaping is landscaping with native plants that don’t rely so much on extra watering, especially important in arid climates. Connect with your region’s Native Plant Society to evaluate your current landscaping and make changes to reduce the amount of water you need to keep your outdoor landscape healthy and beautiful.
Be a locavore – Use food ingredients that are locally produced. I’m not saying you need to give up bananas from Mexico or pineapples from Hawaii or, God forbid, coffee from Sulawesi. Just be aware of how the food choices you make affect the environment. Every time you purchase food that was not produced in your region, it means that it, along with tons of other produce, was transported hundreds or thousands of miles, using up precious resources and polluting the environment. And now they want to transport chickens raised in the U.S. to China for processing and then back again for consumption? How ridiculous is that?
Use non-toxic cleaners – For your health and for the environment, consider every cleaner you use. They are filled with chemicals, and though our bodies have a natural ability to detox, the more chemicals you are exposed to, the more difficult it is for your body to eliminate them. And they don’t necessary disappear, either. They build up in your home and in our wastewater. Vinegar and baking soda can pretty much do it all for a fraction of the cost of conventional cleaners. A quick Internet search will give you instructions on how to clean anything naturally.
Eat weeds – Seriously, some of them are really good eatin’ and pretty good for you, too. We only call them weeds because they are not attractive and tend to take over our beautifully manicured green lawns. Tons of chemicals are used every year to control these unwanted plants. Do you really want toxic chemicals instead of free, healthy food? What’s wrong with you? Pop those dandelion flowers and sauté them in butter. I’ll warn you, though, you may start salivating while you’re out getting some sun in the backyard. Check out www.eattheweeds.comfor more info before you nosh.
These are just a few of the things you can do to celebrate Earth Day. Implement as many as you can, and you will find yourself “thinking green.” Once you start thinking green, you’ll see how everything we do impacts our natural resources. The less of an impact we have, the healthier our planet - and we - will be.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
Earth Day, which falls on April 22 every year, is a great reminder for us to think about how our actions affect the earth. Beyond the usual Reduce, Reuse, Recycle mantra (don’t get me wrong – these are important), here are a few unconventional things you can do to celebrate Earth Day.
Xeriscape – Xeriscaping is landscaping with native plants that don’t rely so much on extra watering, especially important in arid climates. Connect with your region’s Native Plant Society to evaluate your current landscaping and make changes to reduce the amount of water you need to keep your outdoor landscape healthy and beautiful.
Be a locavore – Use food ingredients that are locally produced. I’m not saying you need to give up bananas from Mexico or pineapples from Hawaii or, God forbid, coffee from Sulawesi. Just be aware of how the food choices you make affect the environment. Every time you purchase food that was not produced in your region, it means that it, along with tons of other produce, was transported hundreds or thousands of miles, using up precious resources and polluting the environment. And now they want to transport chickens raised in the U.S. to China for processing and then back again for consumption? How ridiculous is that?
Use non-toxic cleaners – For your health and for the environment, consider every cleaner you use. They are filled with chemicals, and though our bodies have a natural ability to detox, the more chemicals you are exposed to, the more difficult it is for your body to eliminate them. And they don’t necessary disappear, either. They build up in your home and in our wastewater. Vinegar and baking soda can pretty much do it all for a fraction of the cost of conventional cleaners. A quick Internet search will give you instructions on how to clean anything naturally.
Eat weeds – Seriously, some of them are really good eatin’ and pretty good for you, too. We only call them weeds because they are not attractive and tend to take over our beautifully manicured green lawns. Tons of chemicals are used every year to control these unwanted plants. Do you really want toxic chemicals instead of free, healthy food? What’s wrong with you? Pop those dandelion flowers and sauté them in butter. I’ll warn you, though, you may start salivating while you’re out getting some sun in the backyard. Check out www.eattheweeds.comfor more info before you nosh.
These are just a few of the things you can do to celebrate Earth Day. Implement as many as you can, and you will find yourself “thinking green.” Once you start thinking green, you’ll see how everything we do impacts our natural resources. The less of an impact we have, the healthier our planet - and we - will be.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
April 15, 2016
Book Review: Cooking with Cicadas
©2016 Kari Carlisle
Have you heard that insects will solve the world hunger problem? That may be so, and this book may help you get past your aversion so that you don’t starve.
Cooking with Cicadas by R. Scott Frothingham goes far beyond any expectations I had going into this book. If your idea of cooking is adding ground beef to Hamburger Helper, you may find the recipes in this book a little out of your league. If you love to cook from scratch and/or experiment in the kitchen, this book is right up your alley. Either way, everyone can get something out of Cooking with Cicadas, even if you never willfully or knowingly eat a bug for the rest of your life.
Now, I must admit, if I were to write a book on, say, cooking with crickets, I could theoretically just take a bunch of recipes and substitute the chicken or beef with crickets. This is categorically NOT what Frothingham has done here. He introduces the concept of harvesting and cooking with cicadas with a depth of information unexpected by the reader and then provides recipes with clear instructions and sometimes personalized suggestions on how to prepare and eat the cicadas. For example, he recommends eating the Cabo Wabo Cicada Tacos “while hot with lots of beer.” Frothingham, dude, I want to party with you!
Admittedly, I was enthralled with the concept of eating cicadas and found myself actually picturing my husband and me out collecting cicadas and preparing them as Frothingham suggests. Sadly (i.e. with relief), I do not live in a cicada infested area. I guess “infested” is really the wrong word. Cicada habitat. So I do not have an opportunity to actually follow the advice set forth in this book. However, Frothingham clearly has – he’s not just making this stuff up. In fact, several of the recipes here are from respected members of the gastronomic community, including Andrew Zimmern, host of Travel Channel’s Bizarre Foods.
Cooking with Cicadas contains dozens of mouth-watering recipes from Cicada Frittata to Caramel Cicada Crunch. I suppose if you are simply never going to eat cicadas, either because you are not blessed to live in their habitat or there’s just no way it’s ever gonna happen, you can still enjoy these recipes by substituting, say, chicken or beef. Our just leaving them out entirely, especially in the dessert recipes.
I’ve always been intrigued with the idea of eating insects. I would totally do it if one of these dishes was set on the table in front of me. My personal issue would be touching, harvesting, killing, or looking at the bugs. Disguise it in food, and I’m good. This from a woman who must channel Ripley in Aliens to muster the courage to kill a spider.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
Have you heard that insects will solve the world hunger problem? That may be so, and this book may help you get past your aversion so that you don’t starve.
Cooking with Cicadas by R. Scott Frothingham goes far beyond any expectations I had going into this book. If your idea of cooking is adding ground beef to Hamburger Helper, you may find the recipes in this book a little out of your league. If you love to cook from scratch and/or experiment in the kitchen, this book is right up your alley. Either way, everyone can get something out of Cooking with Cicadas, even if you never willfully or knowingly eat a bug for the rest of your life.
Now, I must admit, if I were to write a book on, say, cooking with crickets, I could theoretically just take a bunch of recipes and substitute the chicken or beef with crickets. This is categorically NOT what Frothingham has done here. He introduces the concept of harvesting and cooking with cicadas with a depth of information unexpected by the reader and then provides recipes with clear instructions and sometimes personalized suggestions on how to prepare and eat the cicadas. For example, he recommends eating the Cabo Wabo Cicada Tacos “while hot with lots of beer.” Frothingham, dude, I want to party with you!
Admittedly, I was enthralled with the concept of eating cicadas and found myself actually picturing my husband and me out collecting cicadas and preparing them as Frothingham suggests. Sadly (i.e. with relief), I do not live in a cicada infested area. I guess “infested” is really the wrong word. Cicada habitat. So I do not have an opportunity to actually follow the advice set forth in this book. However, Frothingham clearly has – he’s not just making this stuff up. In fact, several of the recipes here are from respected members of the gastronomic community, including Andrew Zimmern, host of Travel Channel’s Bizarre Foods.
Cooking with Cicadas contains dozens of mouth-watering recipes from Cicada Frittata to Caramel Cicada Crunch. I suppose if you are simply never going to eat cicadas, either because you are not blessed to live in their habitat or there’s just no way it’s ever gonna happen, you can still enjoy these recipes by substituting, say, chicken or beef. Our just leaving them out entirely, especially in the dessert recipes.
I’ve always been intrigued with the idea of eating insects. I would totally do it if one of these dishes was set on the table in front of me. My personal issue would be touching, harvesting, killing, or looking at the bugs. Disguise it in food, and I’m good. This from a woman who must channel Ripley in Aliens to muster the courage to kill a spider.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
April 8, 2016
The Truth: Antibiotics in Meat
©2016 C. Henry Martens
Does it concern you at all that antibiotics are being fed to animals intended to end up on a plate as food? Well, it should. Whether you are a Vegan, Vegetarian, or someone that prefers their steak still mooing, you should understand that antibiotics fed to livestock as a standard practice impact what kind of health you and your loved ones will have… right now. The consequences will only grow as time goes on, and the future holds some fairly terror-inducing scenarios if meat is continued to be produced by treating entire feedlots with unnecessary antibiotics.
Wait a minute… Did I say UNNECESSARY? Whoa there… did I misspeak? NO!!! I did NOT! So let me say it again. The standard practice of using antibiotics on all of the animals in a feedlot, indeed practically all animals produced for consumption, is UNNECESSARY.
Not long ago I was watching the news, a program on one of the major networks, well respected by many and usually accurate to an extent that they are difficult to fault. They were doing a story on how antibiotics being fed to animals in crowded conditions have become a problem. This as drug resistant diseases have skyrocketed, becoming ever more deadly and difficult to treat, and the problem directly traceable to the overuse of drugs being fed to livestock. They went on to explain that by using antibiotics in such a large population, the bacteria-causing diseases have had an opportunity to mutate and create a resistance to the drugs, which in turn threaten human beings. Ending the segment, the commentator stated something along the lines of “Antibiotics are used in feed to keep animals healthy in crowded conditions.”
I do not understand how a national news organization could allow a statement like that to be broadcast… as it is patently false. Livestock producers do NOT use antibiotics as a feed supplement to keep their animals healthy, unless they are ignorant of what the real reasons are, and I find it difficult to believe that is the case.
But before I tell you why antibiotics are unnecessary as standard treatment, let’s explore the reason they came to be used in the first place. It goes something like this, keeping in mind that antibiotics were first used when feedlots were much smaller than today.
“Damn, Boss… this is the third (steer, chicken, hog) animal I’ve found dead today. What do you think we should do?”
The boss gets a furrowed brow and ponders the question.
“I know. I’ll call the vet and ask him to come down and treat all of the ones left. If any of them are sick, they’ll be cured and we won’t lose any more.”
The vet arrives, treats the entire facility, and there are fewer deaths.
The boss thanks the vet some time later, and the vet comments that it might be a good practice to treat all of the animals before they get sick as a preventative. The vet doesn’t understand that by doing this, he will get less business. He’s only trying to be helpful. He suggests a dry, powdered antibiotic that can be included in the feed that gets mixed. It doesn’t cost much per animal, so the economics make it look like something that might work out.
Okay, so this is how it started. Some guy that was losing animals through poor management wanted to cut his losses… and when he starts to add antibiotics to his feed, the loss of animals goes down. That sounds like the end of the story, right? Pretty much what the news story said and probably what you have always believed. Well, that was the end of the story… until it wasn’t. That was the end of the story as far as what the pharmaceutical companies want you to know. It sounds good so far, right? I mean, who would deny sick animals the medicine they need to survive or the poor embattled feedlot owner a living due to his investment going down the tubes?
Hey, I wouldn’t… and I’m writing this article. So what is the problem? Well, let’s continue the story.
The neighboring feedlot owner hears about the guy using antibiotics. He hasn’t had much problem with losses, because he manages his animals well to begin with. But he’s curious, so he makes it a point to talk to his neighbor with the problems. After some discussion and some sharp questions, he decides he doesn’t need the expense of the antibiotic treatments, even though they are minimal. He takes good care of his livestock and can treat what few animals become ill as they need treatment.
The guy treating his livestock as a standard practice has a sharp bookkeeper, probably his wife, and she notices something unusual. She’s a lot smarter than her husband, and that’s why she keeps the books. She notices that this batch of steers that received the meds has gotten to market weight faster than the neighbor’s animals. She does a little digging and realizes that they haven’t had to buy as much feed. The light bulb starts to glow above her head, and over the next couple of years she tracks feed costs and weight gained and discovers that the feedlot is making more money. At first she had thought it was just that they were losing fewer animals, but the light bulb gets brighter until she can’t ignore the facts. The animals are gaining weight faster, eating less feed, and it all started when they started using antibiotics in the feed.
Visiting her good friend over the fence one day, she tells the neighbor’s wife what she has discovered. The neighbor’s wife has noticed that their friends have had some unusually good years, and has held a small grudge as she knows her husband is a better livestock man than the neighbor. She rushes home with the news.
Being a cautious man, her husband listens patiently and thinks long and hard about the past years. He and his neighbor trade information freely, being helpful to each other as good neighbors are. He remembers all of the numbers his next door competitor has let fly, stating what he pays for feed, how much his animals weighed when he bought them, how long they were fed, and when they went to market, and concludes there might be something to this information his wife has brought to his ear.
He has a larger operation with several enclosures, and he selects random paddocks to receive antibiotic laced feed while others receive no drugs. The results speak for themselves. He starts to feed antibiotics to his livestock even though he has healthy animals. The practice spreads throughout the industry.
The livestock industry is competitive, the feed industry is competitive, the pharmaceutical industry is competitive, and when the word gets out that people are making more money by feeding antibiotics to their animals… because they eat less and gain weight faster… it doesn’t take long for others to follow. Lower feed costs, shorter turn around times that animals have to be kept, and other incentives… all translate into the possibility of a new farm truck or tractor.
The problem that most people, including those using the antibiotics, don’t seem to realize… is that before antibiotic use was standard practice, the playing field was level. That means that there was no significant advantage to feeds laced with drugs, because no one was using them. What happened when everyone started to used laced feeds? The playing field became level again. So any advantage in using drug laced feeds went away. I need to say that again, loudly. On a LEVEL playing field, there is NO ADVANTAGE to antibiotic laced animal feed! The feed costs were stable among the feed buyers before, and they were after. No advantage. Meat prices were stable before, meat prices were stable after. No advantage. Animal loss was stable before, animal loss was stable after. The only industries that were affected were the veterinarians and the drug suppliers. What money stopped flowing into veterinarian’s pockets to treat individual animals, began to flow into big pharma’s pockets. The hundred dollars that a vet would charge to treat a single animal was diverted into drugs to treat a thousand animals. And it has to be said, there are still ailing animals and deaths regardless of the antibiotic laced feeds.
So now we have the truth of why antibiotics are fed to animals in feed lots. The practice started as a low cost solution to bad management, but ended up being a way to level the playing field over an entire industry. THAT is what it is all about. You and your children are living in a world with ever more virulent diseases because “everyone else is doing it, so I have to do it to compete”.
There are countries that have stopped the practice of treating entire populations of animals. Those countries don’t have the lobbies that this country does.
What I am saying, is that the playing field could be re-leveled without any substantial harm to the people producing the high quality protein that most of us eat. I am also saying that the animals would be better off as well by being treated only as they require drugs for diseases. That would create a healthier world for ALL of us. Even the pharmaceutical CEO’s kids would have a healthier future. But those CEO's would take a hit to their wallets.
I am of the opinion that they would survive, and survive well. Perhaps the new yacht would have to wait until next year…
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
Does it concern you at all that antibiotics are being fed to animals intended to end up on a plate as food? Well, it should. Whether you are a Vegan, Vegetarian, or someone that prefers their steak still mooing, you should understand that antibiotics fed to livestock as a standard practice impact what kind of health you and your loved ones will have… right now. The consequences will only grow as time goes on, and the future holds some fairly terror-inducing scenarios if meat is continued to be produced by treating entire feedlots with unnecessary antibiotics.
Wait a minute… Did I say UNNECESSARY? Whoa there… did I misspeak? NO!!! I did NOT! So let me say it again. The standard practice of using antibiotics on all of the animals in a feedlot, indeed practically all animals produced for consumption, is UNNECESSARY.
Not long ago I was watching the news, a program on one of the major networks, well respected by many and usually accurate to an extent that they are difficult to fault. They were doing a story on how antibiotics being fed to animals in crowded conditions have become a problem. This as drug resistant diseases have skyrocketed, becoming ever more deadly and difficult to treat, and the problem directly traceable to the overuse of drugs being fed to livestock. They went on to explain that by using antibiotics in such a large population, the bacteria-causing diseases have had an opportunity to mutate and create a resistance to the drugs, which in turn threaten human beings. Ending the segment, the commentator stated something along the lines of “Antibiotics are used in feed to keep animals healthy in crowded conditions.”
I do not understand how a national news organization could allow a statement like that to be broadcast… as it is patently false. Livestock producers do NOT use antibiotics as a feed supplement to keep their animals healthy, unless they are ignorant of what the real reasons are, and I find it difficult to believe that is the case.
But before I tell you why antibiotics are unnecessary as standard treatment, let’s explore the reason they came to be used in the first place. It goes something like this, keeping in mind that antibiotics were first used when feedlots were much smaller than today.
“Damn, Boss… this is the third (steer, chicken, hog) animal I’ve found dead today. What do you think we should do?”
The boss gets a furrowed brow and ponders the question.
“I know. I’ll call the vet and ask him to come down and treat all of the ones left. If any of them are sick, they’ll be cured and we won’t lose any more.”
The vet arrives, treats the entire facility, and there are fewer deaths.
The boss thanks the vet some time later, and the vet comments that it might be a good practice to treat all of the animals before they get sick as a preventative. The vet doesn’t understand that by doing this, he will get less business. He’s only trying to be helpful. He suggests a dry, powdered antibiotic that can be included in the feed that gets mixed. It doesn’t cost much per animal, so the economics make it look like something that might work out.
Okay, so this is how it started. Some guy that was losing animals through poor management wanted to cut his losses… and when he starts to add antibiotics to his feed, the loss of animals goes down. That sounds like the end of the story, right? Pretty much what the news story said and probably what you have always believed. Well, that was the end of the story… until it wasn’t. That was the end of the story as far as what the pharmaceutical companies want you to know. It sounds good so far, right? I mean, who would deny sick animals the medicine they need to survive or the poor embattled feedlot owner a living due to his investment going down the tubes?
Hey, I wouldn’t… and I’m writing this article. So what is the problem? Well, let’s continue the story.
The neighboring feedlot owner hears about the guy using antibiotics. He hasn’t had much problem with losses, because he manages his animals well to begin with. But he’s curious, so he makes it a point to talk to his neighbor with the problems. After some discussion and some sharp questions, he decides he doesn’t need the expense of the antibiotic treatments, even though they are minimal. He takes good care of his livestock and can treat what few animals become ill as they need treatment.
The guy treating his livestock as a standard practice has a sharp bookkeeper, probably his wife, and she notices something unusual. She’s a lot smarter than her husband, and that’s why she keeps the books. She notices that this batch of steers that received the meds has gotten to market weight faster than the neighbor’s animals. She does a little digging and realizes that they haven’t had to buy as much feed. The light bulb starts to glow above her head, and over the next couple of years she tracks feed costs and weight gained and discovers that the feedlot is making more money. At first she had thought it was just that they were losing fewer animals, but the light bulb gets brighter until she can’t ignore the facts. The animals are gaining weight faster, eating less feed, and it all started when they started using antibiotics in the feed.
Visiting her good friend over the fence one day, she tells the neighbor’s wife what she has discovered. The neighbor’s wife has noticed that their friends have had some unusually good years, and has held a small grudge as she knows her husband is a better livestock man than the neighbor. She rushes home with the news.
Being a cautious man, her husband listens patiently and thinks long and hard about the past years. He and his neighbor trade information freely, being helpful to each other as good neighbors are. He remembers all of the numbers his next door competitor has let fly, stating what he pays for feed, how much his animals weighed when he bought them, how long they were fed, and when they went to market, and concludes there might be something to this information his wife has brought to his ear.
He has a larger operation with several enclosures, and he selects random paddocks to receive antibiotic laced feed while others receive no drugs. The results speak for themselves. He starts to feed antibiotics to his livestock even though he has healthy animals. The practice spreads throughout the industry.
The livestock industry is competitive, the feed industry is competitive, the pharmaceutical industry is competitive, and when the word gets out that people are making more money by feeding antibiotics to their animals… because they eat less and gain weight faster… it doesn’t take long for others to follow. Lower feed costs, shorter turn around times that animals have to be kept, and other incentives… all translate into the possibility of a new farm truck or tractor.
The problem that most people, including those using the antibiotics, don’t seem to realize… is that before antibiotic use was standard practice, the playing field was level. That means that there was no significant advantage to feeds laced with drugs, because no one was using them. What happened when everyone started to used laced feeds? The playing field became level again. So any advantage in using drug laced feeds went away. I need to say that again, loudly. On a LEVEL playing field, there is NO ADVANTAGE to antibiotic laced animal feed! The feed costs were stable among the feed buyers before, and they were after. No advantage. Meat prices were stable before, meat prices were stable after. No advantage. Animal loss was stable before, animal loss was stable after. The only industries that were affected were the veterinarians and the drug suppliers. What money stopped flowing into veterinarian’s pockets to treat individual animals, began to flow into big pharma’s pockets. The hundred dollars that a vet would charge to treat a single animal was diverted into drugs to treat a thousand animals. And it has to be said, there are still ailing animals and deaths regardless of the antibiotic laced feeds.
So now we have the truth of why antibiotics are fed to animals in feed lots. The practice started as a low cost solution to bad management, but ended up being a way to level the playing field over an entire industry. THAT is what it is all about. You and your children are living in a world with ever more virulent diseases because “everyone else is doing it, so I have to do it to compete”.
There are countries that have stopped the practice of treating entire populations of animals. Those countries don’t have the lobbies that this country does.
What I am saying, is that the playing field could be re-leveled without any substantial harm to the people producing the high quality protein that most of us eat. I am also saying that the animals would be better off as well by being treated only as they require drugs for diseases. That would create a healthier world for ALL of us. Even the pharmaceutical CEO’s kids would have a healthier future. But those CEO's would take a hit to their wallets.
I am of the opinion that they would survive, and survive well. Perhaps the new yacht would have to wait until next year…
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
April 1, 2016
Time to Tax Robots
©2016 C. Henry Martens
True emergent sentience, in a mechanical form, is coming to a reality near you. There will be ethical questions to be answered, and eventually moral questions. Some rather early science fiction has provided what we might expect as robots become more integrated into the labor force, replacing human beings. The popular laws first proposed in that venue, are still taken seriously as a method to keep us safe from our mechanical devices, to keep robots from harm to humanity.
Three Laws of Robotics, Isaac AsimovA robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Will robots be seen as slaves?Will robots be paid for their labor?Will robots pay tax?Will owners of robots be taxed?
Humans began to be replaced by machines a long time ago. Looms, pottery wheels, spinning wheels, even carts and wagons replaced human labor. We saw these inventions as beneficial back in the days that human labor was cheap, and life spans short. The machines helped to free people to do other things.
Later we replaced human labor with more sophisticated devices. Water and wind mills, sewing machines, metal presses, etc., and still the machines freed people from drudgery in most cases. As technology advanced, machines started to be used to protect human laborers from dangerous occupations. Certainly humans benefited immensely from the advances made in that arena.
Recently we are seeing something that few people expected, or at least paid attention to... that humans would lose jobs to mechanical labor. Jobs that are not being replaced with alternatives. Robotics has made assembly lines almost exclusively mechanical in some industries, and similar robots are advancing and replacing humans in all industries at an accelerating pace.
There are now robots that walk and can manipulate random objects like switches, door handles, and wheels that open valves. We also have robots that can understand speech and respond with answers that are more correct than those from the most intelligent human beings.
Predictions are that very soon, vehicles will not be driven by people. Semi-truck driver's days are numbered. How far away is the day that shopping carts will return to the store by themselves? Or deliver groceries across town on the sidewalks, after being filled by robot labor?
There seems to be a lot of expectation that these jobs that humans do, being no longer necessary for humans to do, will free people up to "do other things."
Well, just how many other things are worth doing?
In discussing these issues with others, I often get the answer that people will be freed from drudgery to become artists, or playwrights, or weavers, or some other skill that requires talent. I am sure that there will be a flood of people into these occupations as manual labor goes extinct. But what does that mean? How many artists make a living from their work, NOW… before their profession is inundated with those who would compete? I can tell you that making a living in the field of art, any art, is much the same as making a living as a professional basketball player. In other words, very few that make the attempt will see positive results. What happens to the people who can’t produce financial success in an ever more crowded field of endeavor?
Many of the alternatives to labor have issues. How do you feel about sitting on a couch all day playing video games or watching movies… or just chatting constantly with “friends” that you have never met? If you have a hobby where you can vent your pent up energy and creative skills, how do you pay for the tools and materials that are required?
Oddly, at least to my own mind, is that there is a lot of hype about robots running amok and slaughtering the entire human race… but little concern over what will happen to the masses of people replaced by mechanical devices in the labor pool. Which is more likely? That your automatic vacuum will suffocate you in your sleep? Or that your job will be stolen by an industrial appliance?
I’m here to tell you… if you think the job market is stretched thin today, and it is hard to find a well paying job now, just wait another twenty years. The only thing saving us is that the government has created a lot of paperwork for us to manage. I suspect that if we lived with the regulatory climate (paperwork) in the middle of the last century and had the same level of robotic labor that we have today, there would be twenty percent, or more, unemployment. Ten, twenty years from now, those numbers will be greater.
The real issue here is that there are too many people with limited opportunity, and the limiting factor is created by the mechanization of formerly human labor. There are presently experimental uses of robots to pick fruit, a formerly unskilled and low wage employment for hundreds of thousands of people. I already mentioned truck drivers. Even medical procedures and diagnostics may become a threatened industry. The future will prove that many more jobs are threatened than we realize. Those wearing the rose colored glasses are sending their children to get degrees in fields that may not be viable soon and to compete for those positions where they will meet with ever increasing numbers of highly educated unemployed. No wonder there is a cry, recently, for relief from college debt.
At some point in the history of labor, there has been a tipping point. At one time there were jobs created by machinery, but the trend has reversed and there is a diminishing job market. The slide will continue… so what to do?
There has already been some discussion in the higher levels of government about instituting a national wage. In other words, a minimal amount of money to be placed in the hands of people that can no longer find employment.
Well, what are the alternatives? On one side of the aisle this public dole national wage is anathema, to give a living to people who are not producing. And they are rightly concerned that those funds will come from the pockets of wealthy people. Where else could the money come from?
Have you ever considered what is happening to the tax base of our government as jobs are lost? The burden is being placed on the middle class and those in the higher income categories. No wonder corporations are fleeing to foreign shores.
I would be remiss if I were to write this without proposing a solution. So here it is. First, find out where machines increased the necessity for human labor, and then the point where machines started to decrease the need for human labor. Find out where the tipping point occurred, and make that the beginning point where we tax robotic labor that replaces human labor.
From that point on, there should be a value placed on those robots that replace humans, much like we have a value that we use to rate the power in an engine. We say “horsepower” to designate how much labor a machine can do in comparing it to what a horse can do. Why not the same thing with a machine that replaces people?
With that information, the numbers of humans being replaced, tax the machine’s productivity the same way that the human equivalent would be taxed. If a machine produces in an hour what a hundred people would produce, tax that machine at the same rate that those hundred people would be taxed.
I can hear the robot owners screaming already. But this is a win-win for everyone, on several levels. The people who own the machinery are not paying for the costs to employ people, vacations, health insurance, sick days, and under producing workers. The government retains a tax base that it can depend on to fund what is in the interest of the nation. Those losing employment have something that can be used to retrain them, or provide a minimal national wage.
I know, the details are pretty obscure. Perhaps the robots will have to be taxed at a rate that includes the wages lost, less the cost of the robot itself.
The point is that we need to start looking at the future… NOW! We, human beings, have a pretty dismal record of waiting for an emergency before we do anything to alleviate what we know is coming. But we can anticipate where this is going and do something about it. Robots, including very sophisticated Artificial Intelligences are on the way. They will be used to replace us, you, your neighbors, your children, in the labor pool… leaving a void in their wake where those displaced, as well as those who own the technology, will struggle. No one gets out unscathed, unless we are prepared to become realistic in the sociological changes technology will visit upon us.
I’m looking forward to the future, and have all kinds of plans for putting a robot to work. I hope I can afford one.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
True emergent sentience, in a mechanical form, is coming to a reality near you. There will be ethical questions to be answered, and eventually moral questions. Some rather early science fiction has provided what we might expect as robots become more integrated into the labor force, replacing human beings. The popular laws first proposed in that venue, are still taken seriously as a method to keep us safe from our mechanical devices, to keep robots from harm to humanity.
Three Laws of Robotics, Isaac AsimovA robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Will robots be seen as slaves?Will robots be paid for their labor?Will robots pay tax?Will owners of robots be taxed?
Humans began to be replaced by machines a long time ago. Looms, pottery wheels, spinning wheels, even carts and wagons replaced human labor. We saw these inventions as beneficial back in the days that human labor was cheap, and life spans short. The machines helped to free people to do other things.
Later we replaced human labor with more sophisticated devices. Water and wind mills, sewing machines, metal presses, etc., and still the machines freed people from drudgery in most cases. As technology advanced, machines started to be used to protect human laborers from dangerous occupations. Certainly humans benefited immensely from the advances made in that arena.
Recently we are seeing something that few people expected, or at least paid attention to... that humans would lose jobs to mechanical labor. Jobs that are not being replaced with alternatives. Robotics has made assembly lines almost exclusively mechanical in some industries, and similar robots are advancing and replacing humans in all industries at an accelerating pace.
There are now robots that walk and can manipulate random objects like switches, door handles, and wheels that open valves. We also have robots that can understand speech and respond with answers that are more correct than those from the most intelligent human beings.
Predictions are that very soon, vehicles will not be driven by people. Semi-truck driver's days are numbered. How far away is the day that shopping carts will return to the store by themselves? Or deliver groceries across town on the sidewalks, after being filled by robot labor?
There seems to be a lot of expectation that these jobs that humans do, being no longer necessary for humans to do, will free people up to "do other things."
Well, just how many other things are worth doing?
In discussing these issues with others, I often get the answer that people will be freed from drudgery to become artists, or playwrights, or weavers, or some other skill that requires talent. I am sure that there will be a flood of people into these occupations as manual labor goes extinct. But what does that mean? How many artists make a living from their work, NOW… before their profession is inundated with those who would compete? I can tell you that making a living in the field of art, any art, is much the same as making a living as a professional basketball player. In other words, very few that make the attempt will see positive results. What happens to the people who can’t produce financial success in an ever more crowded field of endeavor?
Many of the alternatives to labor have issues. How do you feel about sitting on a couch all day playing video games or watching movies… or just chatting constantly with “friends” that you have never met? If you have a hobby where you can vent your pent up energy and creative skills, how do you pay for the tools and materials that are required?
Oddly, at least to my own mind, is that there is a lot of hype about robots running amok and slaughtering the entire human race… but little concern over what will happen to the masses of people replaced by mechanical devices in the labor pool. Which is more likely? That your automatic vacuum will suffocate you in your sleep? Or that your job will be stolen by an industrial appliance?
I’m here to tell you… if you think the job market is stretched thin today, and it is hard to find a well paying job now, just wait another twenty years. The only thing saving us is that the government has created a lot of paperwork for us to manage. I suspect that if we lived with the regulatory climate (paperwork) in the middle of the last century and had the same level of robotic labor that we have today, there would be twenty percent, or more, unemployment. Ten, twenty years from now, those numbers will be greater.
The real issue here is that there are too many people with limited opportunity, and the limiting factor is created by the mechanization of formerly human labor. There are presently experimental uses of robots to pick fruit, a formerly unskilled and low wage employment for hundreds of thousands of people. I already mentioned truck drivers. Even medical procedures and diagnostics may become a threatened industry. The future will prove that many more jobs are threatened than we realize. Those wearing the rose colored glasses are sending their children to get degrees in fields that may not be viable soon and to compete for those positions where they will meet with ever increasing numbers of highly educated unemployed. No wonder there is a cry, recently, for relief from college debt.
At some point in the history of labor, there has been a tipping point. At one time there were jobs created by machinery, but the trend has reversed and there is a diminishing job market. The slide will continue… so what to do?
There has already been some discussion in the higher levels of government about instituting a national wage. In other words, a minimal amount of money to be placed in the hands of people that can no longer find employment.
Well, what are the alternatives? On one side of the aisle this public dole national wage is anathema, to give a living to people who are not producing. And they are rightly concerned that those funds will come from the pockets of wealthy people. Where else could the money come from?
Have you ever considered what is happening to the tax base of our government as jobs are lost? The burden is being placed on the middle class and those in the higher income categories. No wonder corporations are fleeing to foreign shores.
I would be remiss if I were to write this without proposing a solution. So here it is. First, find out where machines increased the necessity for human labor, and then the point where machines started to decrease the need for human labor. Find out where the tipping point occurred, and make that the beginning point where we tax robotic labor that replaces human labor.
From that point on, there should be a value placed on those robots that replace humans, much like we have a value that we use to rate the power in an engine. We say “horsepower” to designate how much labor a machine can do in comparing it to what a horse can do. Why not the same thing with a machine that replaces people?
With that information, the numbers of humans being replaced, tax the machine’s productivity the same way that the human equivalent would be taxed. If a machine produces in an hour what a hundred people would produce, tax that machine at the same rate that those hundred people would be taxed.
I can hear the robot owners screaming already. But this is a win-win for everyone, on several levels. The people who own the machinery are not paying for the costs to employ people, vacations, health insurance, sick days, and under producing workers. The government retains a tax base that it can depend on to fund what is in the interest of the nation. Those losing employment have something that can be used to retrain them, or provide a minimal national wage.
I know, the details are pretty obscure. Perhaps the robots will have to be taxed at a rate that includes the wages lost, less the cost of the robot itself.
The point is that we need to start looking at the future… NOW! We, human beings, have a pretty dismal record of waiting for an emergency before we do anything to alleviate what we know is coming. But we can anticipate where this is going and do something about it. Robots, including very sophisticated Artificial Intelligences are on the way. They will be used to replace us, you, your neighbors, your children, in the labor pool… leaving a void in their wake where those displaced, as well as those who own the technology, will struggle. No one gets out unscathed, unless we are prepared to become realistic in the sociological changes technology will visit upon us.
I’m looking forward to the future, and have all kinds of plans for putting a robot to work. I hope I can afford one.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
March 26, 2016
Guest Post: Taking Precautions
©2016 Kim Robinson
Since the threat of Y2K, there has been this little nagging voice telling me to take precautions so that I can sustain and protect my family in the event of a crisis. While studying apocalyptic, extinction level event movies and books, I have come to the realization that I had better start preparing. The people in Syria never thought their homes would be eviscerated, and look at the death, displacement and illness that has resulted.
My Apocalypse concerns have prompted me to start researching things, like steam powered generators and solar panels, in case there is no way to power lights or flip a switch to get heat. My husband bought a ten dollar bag of wood and it was gone in three hours. There aren’t enough trees in my backyard to keep my house heated for a week and can you see my old butt trying to swing an ax? No way, I just got this new shoulder.
Another big concern is medicine. Heck, half of the world is going to be scavenging for food and water, while I am going to be breaking into the local CVS pharmacy to get my pills so I can survive. People take medicine and they use the bathroom, the waste goes to the ocean and then the fish eat it, you eat the fish, and the water is lifted by clouds and then comes down as rain, feeding the vegetables and grass that the livestock eat. Where did the medicine go? I think that is why different areas have different physical maladies.
Water is already a problem, ask the people in Michigan who are getting sick from municipal water, or the people in Gardenia who are being told that black water is okay for consumption. How am I supposed to know what water is safe to drink? I try it, and by then it could be too late.
Where are we going to put our waste, are we going to bury it in the backyard and later use it for fertilizer, or save to try and recycle it into water?
Money will be just like it was after the civil war, worthless. The bank where your money is? Are they going to give you something that no one uses? Also, without tellers, how can you get to your savings? I guess I better start buying silver and gold bars, maybe they will be worth something. Hopefully my sewing and cooking skills will be something I can barter to survive.
Transportation, how will I fuel my car? I get worn out on my elliptical machine after ten minutes, so I know that I can’t bike or walk far at my age.
And now we address my main concern – food. How many people know the proper way to hunt and prepare food so that they don’t poison themselves? I wouldn’t know one herb from another if it wasn’t labeled in the vegetable section, or in a spice jar. I’ll be done messed around, and might season my food with poison ivy or something. I have been watching a show that teaches you how to cook in a wood or coal burning fireplace. I have to order some cast iron cookware, some spider pans and start practicing. Kind of gives you a new respect for our ancestors that had to discover what was edible or poison, and how it affected their body. Then they had the nerve to learn how to cook, season, and make it taste good.
With all the unrest in the world how would you survive?What are some of your ideas on surviving in a post-apocalyptic world?
Kim Robinson Author of The Roux in the Gumbowww.kim-robinson.com
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
Since the threat of Y2K, there has been this little nagging voice telling me to take precautions so that I can sustain and protect my family in the event of a crisis. While studying apocalyptic, extinction level event movies and books, I have come to the realization that I had better start preparing. The people in Syria never thought their homes would be eviscerated, and look at the death, displacement and illness that has resulted.
My Apocalypse concerns have prompted me to start researching things, like steam powered generators and solar panels, in case there is no way to power lights or flip a switch to get heat. My husband bought a ten dollar bag of wood and it was gone in three hours. There aren’t enough trees in my backyard to keep my house heated for a week and can you see my old butt trying to swing an ax? No way, I just got this new shoulder.
Another big concern is medicine. Heck, half of the world is going to be scavenging for food and water, while I am going to be breaking into the local CVS pharmacy to get my pills so I can survive. People take medicine and they use the bathroom, the waste goes to the ocean and then the fish eat it, you eat the fish, and the water is lifted by clouds and then comes down as rain, feeding the vegetables and grass that the livestock eat. Where did the medicine go? I think that is why different areas have different physical maladies.
Water is already a problem, ask the people in Michigan who are getting sick from municipal water, or the people in Gardenia who are being told that black water is okay for consumption. How am I supposed to know what water is safe to drink? I try it, and by then it could be too late.
Where are we going to put our waste, are we going to bury it in the backyard and later use it for fertilizer, or save to try and recycle it into water?
Money will be just like it was after the civil war, worthless. The bank where your money is? Are they going to give you something that no one uses? Also, without tellers, how can you get to your savings? I guess I better start buying silver and gold bars, maybe they will be worth something. Hopefully my sewing and cooking skills will be something I can barter to survive.
Transportation, how will I fuel my car? I get worn out on my elliptical machine after ten minutes, so I know that I can’t bike or walk far at my age.
And now we address my main concern – food. How many people know the proper way to hunt and prepare food so that they don’t poison themselves? I wouldn’t know one herb from another if it wasn’t labeled in the vegetable section, or in a spice jar. I’ll be done messed around, and might season my food with poison ivy or something. I have been watching a show that teaches you how to cook in a wood or coal burning fireplace. I have to order some cast iron cookware, some spider pans and start practicing. Kind of gives you a new respect for our ancestors that had to discover what was edible or poison, and how it affected their body. Then they had the nerve to learn how to cook, season, and make it taste good.
With all the unrest in the world how would you survive?What are some of your ideas on surviving in a post-apocalyptic world?
Kim Robinson Author of The Roux in the Gumbowww.kim-robinson.com
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
March 18, 2016
Apocalypse Survival 101: Define the Level of Risk
©2016 C. Henry Martens
Apocalypse Survival 101Mental attitudeAssess the situationDefine the level of riskQuestions that need to be askedLocation, location, locationSkill setTimingThe realities in your support systemInventory of resourcesOdds versus priority
Apocalypse Survival 101: Define the Level of Risk
Learning to use a risk matrix is a valuable ability. Basically, you make a simple graph which lists two kinds of criteria along the top and one side. On the top, left to right, place the probability of an event occurring. Remote, Unlikely, Common, Probable, Certain. Next list the possible consequences of an event occurring down the left side, top to bottom. Negligible, Minor, Moderate, Significant, Severe. Fill in the squares with the concerns you perceive, those events you see as threats.
For instance, the chances of an extinction-level event from an asteroid hitting the earth is virtually one hundred percent, but during your lifetime (the area of your concern) virtually non-existent. So you would place that concern under Remote.
Next define the result of an earth killing asteroid hitting the earth. That would be under Severe.
Depending on where the event sits on your graph, it tells you the level of risk. In this case, since an asteroid is so unlikely in hitting the earth (to say nothing of what you might do to survive an event like this), the risk is very low.
Any other possibilities would fill the rest of the squares based on your assessments. One of my extreme concerns is an intentional plague. Some things have to come together to make it an imminent threat, so I place it under Probable and across from Severe. If you read my books you will understand why I classify this threat as the highest level of risk, but perhaps twenty years from now (more or less). An accidental plague is perhaps as likely.
You can use this kind of mental image to help in your every day life as well, just by changing the values to suit the kind of decision required. It is certainly a useful tool when making a budget for your personal finances. With practice the mental process will become familiar and second nature. That way, when an imminent threat makes a sudden appearance, you will automatically make better decisions.
Besides assigning value to a course of action, making decisions easier, thinking this way gets your mind comfortable with considering and identifying options. Too often an untrained mind will settle on only one solution, the first that comes to mind, and will not go beyond that idea. You would be surprised how many options there are in the simplest tasks. How many ways can you make pancakes? Different batters? Different berries? Different toppings? Thin, thick, large, small, rolled up with stuff inside, stacked…? You get the idea.
The use of a risk matrix is about defining whether you should run, hide, or plant a garden. It gives you realistic information so that you can consider the options available. We often ignore options because we are creatures of habit.
In an apocalypse, being a creature of habit can get you killed.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
Apocalypse Survival 101Mental attitudeAssess the situationDefine the level of riskQuestions that need to be askedLocation, location, locationSkill setTimingThe realities in your support systemInventory of resourcesOdds versus priority
Apocalypse Survival 101: Define the Level of Risk
Learning to use a risk matrix is a valuable ability. Basically, you make a simple graph which lists two kinds of criteria along the top and one side. On the top, left to right, place the probability of an event occurring. Remote, Unlikely, Common, Probable, Certain. Next list the possible consequences of an event occurring down the left side, top to bottom. Negligible, Minor, Moderate, Significant, Severe. Fill in the squares with the concerns you perceive, those events you see as threats.
For instance, the chances of an extinction-level event from an asteroid hitting the earth is virtually one hundred percent, but during your lifetime (the area of your concern) virtually non-existent. So you would place that concern under Remote.
Next define the result of an earth killing asteroid hitting the earth. That would be under Severe.
Depending on where the event sits on your graph, it tells you the level of risk. In this case, since an asteroid is so unlikely in hitting the earth (to say nothing of what you might do to survive an event like this), the risk is very low.
Any other possibilities would fill the rest of the squares based on your assessments. One of my extreme concerns is an intentional plague. Some things have to come together to make it an imminent threat, so I place it under Probable and across from Severe. If you read my books you will understand why I classify this threat as the highest level of risk, but perhaps twenty years from now (more or less). An accidental plague is perhaps as likely.
You can use this kind of mental image to help in your every day life as well, just by changing the values to suit the kind of decision required. It is certainly a useful tool when making a budget for your personal finances. With practice the mental process will become familiar and second nature. That way, when an imminent threat makes a sudden appearance, you will automatically make better decisions.
Besides assigning value to a course of action, making decisions easier, thinking this way gets your mind comfortable with considering and identifying options. Too often an untrained mind will settle on only one solution, the first that comes to mind, and will not go beyond that idea. You would be surprised how many options there are in the simplest tasks. How many ways can you make pancakes? Different batters? Different berries? Different toppings? Thin, thick, large, small, rolled up with stuff inside, stacked…? You get the idea.
The use of a risk matrix is about defining whether you should run, hide, or plant a garden. It gives you realistic information so that you can consider the options available. We often ignore options because we are creatures of habit.
In an apocalypse, being a creature of habit can get you killed.
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox
www.readmota.com
March 11, 2016
Guest Post: How to Make a Coroplast Emergency Shelter (or Post-Apocalyptic Bicycle Camper)
©2016 Paul Elkins
I used Coroplast for the first time when I decided to frame up a small Cube structure to hang out in at the 2003 Burning Manart festival.
Prior to this decision, I’d recently traveled around America for seven weeks in my tiny home-built Stealth Camper created in the back of my Toyota pickup. It was a comfortable space with bed, kitchen, electricity and even a TV. Everything was readily at hand. But I planned the Cube to be only four feet square, so sleeping in the Cube was out of the question. I did however install my small beat-up recliner, along with shelves for books, radio, knickknacks and my cooler. I even cooked on the door ledge from the comfort of my recliner. The door was closed when the dust storms blew through, and unlike other years of staying in a tent, I was able to breathe without a dust mask and watch stray tents blow by through my 18" bubble window.
The next year for Burning Man I made my version of a Post-Apocalyptic Bicycle Camper. At six feet long and three feet wide this new structure was equipped with a bed, bathroom, kitchen, solar hot water and solar power. It even had a solar food dehydrator. To keep the structure light I again used Coroplast for the shelves, boxes, shell and a semi arced roof.
Several years later I was curious to see if arcing a Coroplast sheet end to end would afford enough space to move around in, and after some preliminary positive tests and many drawings I purchased 4 sheets and went about building the Homeless-Emergency Shelter.
But unlike the post-apocalyptic bike camper, which used aluminum tubing for the support frame, I decided to go without frame support and rely on just the strength of the arced Coroplast material itself. Triple folds on the ends of the joining roof panels created a ledge for the wall panels to rest against. I also included a Coroplast floor. To keep the build simple, cable or ‘zip’ ties were used to attach all the panels together. To keep moisture from getting in, duct tape was laid over the cable ties.
At a cost of $100 for all materials, this small structure I feel is a step ahead of a conventional tent, offering some insulation properties, overhead shelving and a rear wall that you can lean up against. The door has a Plexiglas window that lowers, and a hasp lock, which will keep honest people honest.
The arced structure works well in the Northwest elements, having withstood 5 years now of outdoor exposure to sun, wind, rain and 6” of snow fall.
I was thinking of using plywood for the sidewalls, but to keep cost and construction simple I opted to go all plastic.
If one were to plan on mass producing these shelters, the sheets could be cut on a CNC router machine. The panels could be stacked 4 high per structure. A three foot tall 4x8 foot pallet would yield over 45 structures, making easy shipment for Emergency use.
The assembly time would take longer than erecting a tent, but sometimes it’s good to have busy hands so the mind can be occupied on something other than the fear, sorrow and anxiety that an Emergency situation usually brings.
At the time I made this structure I was interested in what several philanthropists were making for their local homeless population.
I envisioned constructing these for a sanctioned Homeless encampment or use Camouflaged UV protected Coroplast, something the manufacturer offers, for unsanctioned stealth camping, which is usually the case in most cities.
I've since played with another design. In this you’re able to stand up and sleep two comfortably with room on the sides for storage. Assembly and dis-assembly takes a matter of minutes, and no need for one-time use zip ties. It's an 8 sided Teepee, again only using 4 sheets, but with a tarp floor. Duct tape was used to attach the panels together. Stored as a 1-1/2" thick pie, once unfolded a long Velcro strip joins the sides together. A rain cap also held down with Velcro ties the whole thing into a solid structure. Flaps at the base of the Teepee have eyelets installed so tent stakes can be driven down to hold the structure firmly to the ground.
Several people have made both of these structures for the homeless in their communities, absorbing the cost through charitable collections from their Church congregation.
There are those who have played with larger Coroplast structures using 10 sheets for the floor, walls and roof. Someday I plan to try out a version similar to these but outfitting the room with Coroplast table and shelves.
Not long ago I made another Bicycle camper, this more for practical use utilizing recycled campaign signs for the shell and having a rounded nose for better aerodynamics. Foil bubble insulation was added to the interior along with shelving and counter space on both sides. Including the storage bins, 3" sleeping pad, stove and sink, the structure weighs only 60 pounds. I see this as having several uses: for touring, for Nomad inexpensive living, for a homeless individual or as a bug-out vehicle.
Besides these shelters I've also used Coroplast for vehicle skins, a dog house, several motor boats and even a folding Kayak. Coroplast has its limits, but so far I've been very happy playing and discovering what can be made with this light weight, cheap and weather proof material. Coroplast is a trade name. It’s more commonly known as ‘fluted plastic’.
I purchase my material at a plastic supply store, where I sometimes have a choice of thickness, size and color options. Home Depot is starting to carry standard 4mm white sheets in some of their stores. They also offer 10-sheet packs through their on-line store for $120 delivered within a week to your nearest store. Sign stores are another option to purchase a sheet or two, as Coroplast is used mostly for outdoor signs. So if you happen upon an old campaign sign along the roadway, I encourage you to grab it, take it home, play with it and see where your imagination takes you...
ElkinsDIY.com or Paul Elkins Youtube
Click HERE to see see this article in the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter with more pictures from Burning Man!
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox.
www.readmota.com
I used Coroplast for the first time when I decided to frame up a small Cube structure to hang out in at the 2003 Burning Manart festival.
Prior to this decision, I’d recently traveled around America for seven weeks in my tiny home-built Stealth Camper created in the back of my Toyota pickup. It was a comfortable space with bed, kitchen, electricity and even a TV. Everything was readily at hand. But I planned the Cube to be only four feet square, so sleeping in the Cube was out of the question. I did however install my small beat-up recliner, along with shelves for books, radio, knickknacks and my cooler. I even cooked on the door ledge from the comfort of my recliner. The door was closed when the dust storms blew through, and unlike other years of staying in a tent, I was able to breathe without a dust mask and watch stray tents blow by through my 18" bubble window.
The next year for Burning Man I made my version of a Post-Apocalyptic Bicycle Camper. At six feet long and three feet wide this new structure was equipped with a bed, bathroom, kitchen, solar hot water and solar power. It even had a solar food dehydrator. To keep the structure light I again used Coroplast for the shelves, boxes, shell and a semi arced roof.
Several years later I was curious to see if arcing a Coroplast sheet end to end would afford enough space to move around in, and after some preliminary positive tests and many drawings I purchased 4 sheets and went about building the Homeless-Emergency Shelter.
But unlike the post-apocalyptic bike camper, which used aluminum tubing for the support frame, I decided to go without frame support and rely on just the strength of the arced Coroplast material itself. Triple folds on the ends of the joining roof panels created a ledge for the wall panels to rest against. I also included a Coroplast floor. To keep the build simple, cable or ‘zip’ ties were used to attach all the panels together. To keep moisture from getting in, duct tape was laid over the cable ties.
At a cost of $100 for all materials, this small structure I feel is a step ahead of a conventional tent, offering some insulation properties, overhead shelving and a rear wall that you can lean up against. The door has a Plexiglas window that lowers, and a hasp lock, which will keep honest people honest.
The arced structure works well in the Northwest elements, having withstood 5 years now of outdoor exposure to sun, wind, rain and 6” of snow fall.
I was thinking of using plywood for the sidewalls, but to keep cost and construction simple I opted to go all plastic.
If one were to plan on mass producing these shelters, the sheets could be cut on a CNC router machine. The panels could be stacked 4 high per structure. A three foot tall 4x8 foot pallet would yield over 45 structures, making easy shipment for Emergency use.
The assembly time would take longer than erecting a tent, but sometimes it’s good to have busy hands so the mind can be occupied on something other than the fear, sorrow and anxiety that an Emergency situation usually brings.
At the time I made this structure I was interested in what several philanthropists were making for their local homeless population.
I envisioned constructing these for a sanctioned Homeless encampment or use Camouflaged UV protected Coroplast, something the manufacturer offers, for unsanctioned stealth camping, which is usually the case in most cities.
I've since played with another design. In this you’re able to stand up and sleep two comfortably with room on the sides for storage. Assembly and dis-assembly takes a matter of minutes, and no need for one-time use zip ties. It's an 8 sided Teepee, again only using 4 sheets, but with a tarp floor. Duct tape was used to attach the panels together. Stored as a 1-1/2" thick pie, once unfolded a long Velcro strip joins the sides together. A rain cap also held down with Velcro ties the whole thing into a solid structure. Flaps at the base of the Teepee have eyelets installed so tent stakes can be driven down to hold the structure firmly to the ground.
Several people have made both of these structures for the homeless in their communities, absorbing the cost through charitable collections from their Church congregation.
There are those who have played with larger Coroplast structures using 10 sheets for the floor, walls and roof. Someday I plan to try out a version similar to these but outfitting the room with Coroplast table and shelves.
Not long ago I made another Bicycle camper, this more for practical use utilizing recycled campaign signs for the shell and having a rounded nose for better aerodynamics. Foil bubble insulation was added to the interior along with shelving and counter space on both sides. Including the storage bins, 3" sleeping pad, stove and sink, the structure weighs only 60 pounds. I see this as having several uses: for touring, for Nomad inexpensive living, for a homeless individual or as a bug-out vehicle.
Besides these shelters I've also used Coroplast for vehicle skins, a dog house, several motor boats and even a folding Kayak. Coroplast has its limits, but so far I've been very happy playing and discovering what can be made with this light weight, cheap and weather proof material. Coroplast is a trade name. It’s more commonly known as ‘fluted plastic’.
I purchase my material at a plastic supply store, where I sometimes have a choice of thickness, size and color options. Home Depot is starting to carry standard 4mm white sheets in some of their stores. They also offer 10-sheet packs through their on-line store for $120 delivered within a week to your nearest store. Sign stores are another option to purchase a sheet or two, as Coroplast is used mostly for outdoor signs. So if you happen upon an old campaign sign along the roadway, I encourage you to grab it, take it home, play with it and see where your imagination takes you...
ElkinsDIY.com or Paul Elkins Youtube
Click HERE to see see this article in the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter with more pictures from Burning Man!
Sign up to receive the Apocalypse Observer Newsletter in your inbox.
www.readmota.com
