Autumn

October first, it's finally getting cold enough for me to be sitting wrapped in a blanket, and it's beginning to smell like autumn. In thirty days, all over this country people will be dressed up as ghosts, devils, animals, and any number of other things.

There are a number of versions of what Hallowing was in the beginning, some more rooted in fact than others, but what matters today, what is really important is what Halloween has become. Halloween is many things. It's a chance for people to make more money, and it's a chance for kids and adults to dress up. It's a chance to indulge in candy, and a little make-believe. It has also become a chance to dwell for a moment on the supernatural, to ponder the afterlife and the many tales we have heard since we were young. It is a chance, for some of us, to revisit the notion that perhaps the world does not work the way we've come to believe.

For some, the holiday will be spent watching horror movies, and for some it will not be celebrated at all, but regardless of your theology, this is a holiday in the middle of Autumn, a time (in the northern hemisphere) in which death is unavoidable. Trees are losing their leaves, and animals are preparing for the winter. The bright colors of the summer are replaced by those of the fall, and soon those are chased away and the world fades to grays and whites, and cold begins to seep in.

Maybe it's the cold that brings it out, more than falling leaves or barren trees. We are a species dependent on warmth and when we have none, we die. Regardless of the reason, death and autumn go hand in hand for us and death is the gateway to the Great Beyond. Where do we go when we die? It is not death itself that we fear, but a sudden change, the result of which we don't really know.

"For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, when we have shuffled off this mortal coil..."

The unknown is what is truly unnerving - what may be hidden in the darkness, or under murky water, or in the heart of a mountain. The noises we do not understand, the lights where darkness belongs.

Out of this reminder of death comes a time for stories of the supernatural. Tales from long ago, dreams that seem to be something more. What have YOU witnessed, and explained away?
What memories from your childhood have been glossed over as dreams, or false memories?

Make a story this Halloween, for yourself, or for others; from your past or from your imagination. Stray outside the realms of reality and take yourself into a world of ghosts and angels, magic and mystery. For a month, take some time to forget what you know, and dare to believe that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy.

Why Sara Palin Scares Me

For an introduction, I have a B.A. in Biology, and I am appalled at the idea that Sara Palin coming anywhere CLOSE to the presidency of the United States of America. The problem is, in politics people's opinions don't always come from the use of logic. Although I see this more often in those who lean to the Right, I've seen it many many times on the Left as well. This being the case, I feel that if I am to dislike a political figure, I ought to be able to give an answer as to why I have a problem, since I'll demand an answer as to why someone doesn't.

The first thing I heard about Sara Palin was that she was governor of Alaska, that she did not believe that global warming was a human problem, and that she supports the concept of Intelligent Design. While I am not an expert on her and her opinions, a brief web search shows that this introduction to her was accurate. So what's my problem? Why does this bother me?

Currently, Global Warming is an issue in vogue, so I will address that in this essay, and deal with Evolution and Intelligent Design another time. This subject has been a concern since the seventies. For the last thirty years or so, a large number of intelligent people have been carefully studying and analyzing the climate of this planet, and submitting their results to the broader community of scientists for further analysis and critique.

This is how the scientific process works today. It's not just a standard of how to conduct experiments, and analysis, or how to write papers. Every piece of information gathered is examined by people who were not involved in the project. Every result and every experiment must be conducted and published in such a manner that anyone in the world who tried to do the same experiment with the same methods, would get the same result. For a concept to gain standing, all experiments must be reproducible, and must have consistent results every time they are reproduced.

For the last thirty years, thousands of dedicated men and women have been trying their best to get different results, to disprove the theory, and they have not. With any theory, we need people who disagree, otherwise we end up saying the earth is flat and no one blinks an eye. Global Warming, however, has been studied carefully with many people disagreeing and it still hasn't gone away. There is no question that the majority of scientists who have studied this Theory have come up with the same results - Global Warming is a real phenomenon, and it is due to the activities of humans. There are still those who say it is not real, or that it's not human-caused, but they are few, if loud. At this point I should mention that scientists are a curmudgeonly bunch when it comes to new ideas. Getting us to all agree on one thing is harder than you might think, so having a majority supporting an idea is meaningful - it takes more than good speeches and well-designed fliers.

Let us, for a moment, stray to the realm of the Hypothetical. Let us say that you are the ruler of whatever country you call home, and there is an invasion, or a civil war. Someone asks you if you should not just launch a hydrogen bomb at the enemy camp within your territory and have done with it. This is a strategy that would reliably wipe the enemy out and save everyone a lot of hassle. Being a careful leader, you consult the scientists of your country, and the majority of them say that this would be a bad idea, since the land bombed would become radioactive and dangerous to anyone nearby, that the wind would carry that radioactivity to other areas, causing sickness and death for years to come, and problems that would last generations into the future, etc. However, out of the several thousand scientists who say this, about two or three hundred say that this is ridiculous, and those thousand scientists don't know what they're talking about and it'll be a nice place for a garden next year, or that there maybe some localized sickness, but you'd never be sure it was because of the bomb anyway. As a wise leader, what would you do?

Personally, I wouldn't drop the bomb.

So now, in real life, we have a situation in which thousands of scientists are saying that there is a problem with the world, and if we don't act NOW, there will be global consequences. Not only that, but some of these consequences can and have been predicted - Stronger storms and more often, drought in some places, flooding in others, melting ice caps, spread of diseases to new areas - the list goes on. There will also be consequences that go beyond what can be predicted - who knows what will happen to the northern hemisphere when the arctic permafrost has all melted? What would the long-term effect be if the the temperature changes to the point that trees in what is currently temperate forest no longer experience freezes in the winter? There are a lot more of these questions, and I'm sure you can think up a few on your own.

Here we have a situation in which thousands of people who know what they are talking about are telling us that if we don't do something, life as we know it will change, perhaps forever. We also have a few people who are saying that not acting won't be a problem at all, and that doing something could cause economic hardship and the like. Going back to the Nuke scenario, it is much the same. One course of action looks easier, in the short run at least, and has a couple arguments and a few supporters; the other is endorsed by the majority of people who know what they are talking about, and not doing what they say could have catastrophic consequences.

Now let us look again at Sara Palin, someone who has been proposed as a good person to have as Vice President of the most powerful country in the world, and therefore a good person to have as President. This is a person who is ignoring the carefully thought out advice of thousands of scientists on an issue that is likely to have far-reaching and catastrophic consequences. This is a person who a large number of people would be happy to have in control of nuclear bombs. This is a person who is being nominated as someone who should make decisions effecting the lives of billions of people around the world. It is obvious to me that her "executive experience" in Alaska has done very little to prepare her for this. It scares me that so many people are seriously considering her for this position. How can I feel safe knowing that my future may be in the hands of someone who will happily ignore the best and most carefully thought out advice concerning the biggest problem in our time?

Since you have gotten this far into my reasoning, I have an exercise for you. I want you to think carefully about who YOU want as a leader of your country, and then think about WHY you want them. Go past the chemical response that guides you to vote on party lines. Think about the issues, think about what people have said. Think hard about this, no matter WHO you're voting for, because who you support could determine the future of human existence.

Check-in

So not that there are millions of people who read my stuff, but I felt like writing a check-in note. My life as a full-time student is officially over, and working affords me a little more time in the afternoons, some of which maybe diverted to writing here. Not really anything to say, but getting at least SOME writing done is better than nothing at all.

That is all.

Who are we fooling, really?

So, for a little background, I'm in Tanzania for a few months studying various subjects. In the first week, I went on a couple game drives, and read a couple papers on ecology. One of the papers (Honey, 1999) mentioned an interesting comment on the subject of ecotourism. The author quotes an official as saying that overall, hunting safaris have less of a negative impact on the environment and the animals in a park or reserve than photography-oriented safaris. Just to belabor that, let's look into each type of safari. Hunting safaris are typically in private game ranches, and the goal of the tourist, in this case is to kill and record the biggest, most impressive animal he or she can. More often than not, the animal focused on will be a lion or a buffalo, and sometimes, several animals will be killed. If we think back a few decades, Europeans (and Americans) who had a lot of money would often go to Africa and kill large numbers of animals, and then go home, sit in exclusive clubs, and brag to each other over expensive drinks and distinguished looking tobacco products. This behavior resulted in a sharp decline in the numbers of the animals in question. Nowadays, hunting safaris are less readily available due to more stringent laws, and high fees, however, they still exist, usually aiming at smaller numbers of animals (for more information).
Photographic safaris are supposed to be animal friendly and educational, allowing us to see animals and show them to our friends and family without harming them. On most of these safaris, the tourists are not even allowed out of the vehicle. In some ways, the goal is the same as hunting safaris (bagging impressive animals), but without intent to kill. Overall, for most of us who consider ourselves environmentally minded, photo safaris are better for the environment and all the animals in it, and hunting safaris are considered "unenlightened" and barbaric, without consideration for the world we live in (photo safari info).
All that being said, lets look at what else this official said - "The 500 tourist hunters coming to Tanzania each year cause a lot less damage than the 300,000-odd camera tourists." He explained his statement listing off several factors including pollution (less from hunters), garbage (less from hunters), and disturbance caused by game lodges, roads, camera flashes, vans driving all over the national parks and getting very close to the wildlife in an effort to get good pictures. It seems that those of us with cameras make the animals' overall quality of life worse than those of us with guns.
In my own experience, I have never hunted. I have, however been on several photo-oriented game drives, and I have seen dust from the road coating leaves for yards on either side, and have had elephants be bothered by the vehicle I was in, and seen trash left along the roads and around camps.
I'm not defending trophy hunting in this post by any means, but I am saying that maybe us camera nuts should think a little more deeply about the actual impacts of out "animal friendly" activities, at least as they relate to the animals the the environment. Maybe we should take our cameras and work on things closer to home that won't mind as much.

One Citation:
Honey, M. 1999. Tanzania: whose eden is it? Pp. 211-261 in Ecotourism and sustainable development: who owns paradise? (M.Honey, Ed.) Island Press, Washington D.C.

Plus 2 links in the body of the text

...The camel...

Surreal: Having an oddly dreamlike quality.

Surrealism: (origin) French, Sur=beyond, Realieme=realism


Escher, Mirrormask (watch it if you haven't), City of Lost Children, Alice, the sound of loons at night, a warm, windy night in january.

Surreal things always give me a wierd feeling. Somehow, I feel more comfortable knowing that there are some things beyond human control, and beyond human explanation. Even if it is initially created by a human, be it artwork, or literature, or movies, something that is really surreal takes on a life of its own. If you have a truly surreal experience, it takes away, for a moment, your assumptions about life.

Two summers ago, I woke up in my tent in the Addirondacks, just in time to see the fire I had dowsed for the night flare up again. Simultaneously, two loons living on the pond I was camped by began to cy out. First together, then alternating the same, warbling, crazy noises. At the same time the fire flared. Almost the second I woke up. In the middle of the night. I half expected some bizzare creature with long legs, and an air of total wierdness to stalk onto the clearing. I honestly would not have been surprised. The odd thing about it is that I wasn't scared by it. It actually made me feel happy, exhilerated. Like things were the way they're supposed to be. Like not everything can be explained.

Christmas time is here, by golly...

Ordinarily I would write a rant about how Christmas has become a vessel for consumerism, and how infutiating I find the music in drugstores, and so on, but with the exeption of this sentence, i won't tonight. There are a couple reasons for this, the main one being that i have managed to ignore it all so far. I'm sitting in a armchair in front of a fire with snow outside, and my only concern is how late I feel like staying up tonight. It's a nice way to be.
Throughout history, this time of the year has evoked thoughts of other times of the year. Specifically warmer times. The tradition of the Christmas tree comes from a variety of pagan traditions, mostly in England, in which there would be a "warming" festival around midwinter. This got adopted by christians when they arbitrarily decided that Jesus was born of December 25th. Old british folk carols often speak of being cheery and having bright lights etc. despite the harshness of winter specifically to drive the season away, and welcome in the spring; a tradition which, incedently, seems to work. Throughout recorded history, there has been, somewhere in the world, some sort of celebration of this sort every year, and every year spring comes. Coincidence? Absolutely not. It seems likely that the traditions were developed in response to the annual pattern of the seasons, however, just for the sake of twisting things around a bit, what is it's the other way around? As far as anyone can remember (in human history) there have been these celebrations. What if they do influence the weather? The only proof we have otherwise would be if there was strong evidence of pre-human annual patterns like the current ones, or if we could get everyone in the world to not have a celebration like that for a couple years. Seeing as the latter seems highly unlikely, I will address the former.
When debating the issue of global warming with various aquaintences, I have often been told that one cannot call humanity's influence on global weather "unnatural" as we a re technically part of nature. We are animals, in our basest core, and so if something were altogether unnatural we would be unable to do it, or rather, nothing we do could be unnatural because of our nature. You with me so far? In the past, there have been warming/cooling trends like the current one, but without the influence of humans. In the past, it has taken a meteor of big volcanic eruption to shift global weather patterns, and yet we are doing it right now. This means that we are essentially taking the place of a geological phenomenon (and hoping it doesn't happen anyway). By that argument, is it not possible that annual weather patterns have become dependant on our activities as much as millenial weather patterns? perhaps if we ceased all agricultire that had an autumn harvest, we wouldn't have a winter. or maybe if we stopped having celebrations in the winter, we wouldn't have a spring. To the best of my knowledge, it's not something that can be proven, or even investigated without a very effective global dictator, so we'll never know for sure, but think about it. How do we know that thee information we've gathered on why annual weather is the way it is isn't coincidental. it wouldn't be the first time.

summer time, and the livin' is easy

Life is good. The sun is shining, and I'm on the trail for most of the summer. I found a job that allows me to go backpacking on a small section of the AT (among other duties) and get to know the area and the people on the trail. For those of you out there who want a good, cheap way to get in shape, I highly recommend backpacking, just make sure you know what you're doing before you go out. Often when I'm with city folks who haven't spent much if any time in the woods, I have an urge to quote the Lord of the Rings at them (the book, not the movie) - "Fear no nightly noises". People are often scared of what they are not familiar with, be it new people, or a new area, or the thought of creatures watching them from the darkness. I think that if everybody would take the time (could take the time) to familiarize themselves with what wilderness remains in theis country, we'd not only have a better chance of keeping that wilderness, but we'd also have many healthier, happier, more relaxed people in this country, and that can only be a good thing. That being said, don't worry about a little dirt, because it'll wash off. If you get grimy for a week, you can go back to smelling like roses and clover the same day you get back. Don't worry about bugs either, because while the are annoying and disgusting, there are very few that are dangerous in this country. Do a little research, and take the time to get out and breath the fresh mountain air. Humans as a species are made to travel long distances under their oown power. If you're nice to you body, it'll take you places you can't get with an SUV or a chairlift, and you'll se things only a few miles from the nearest town that would amaze people from across the world. I've been living in the woods most of my life, and I took it for granted till I saw the reaction of a friend from an area with no forests. We are surrounded by the lands that first awed the europeans and were sacred (are sacred) the the Native Americans. That's something worth thinking about.