I Don't Need 55

I live about 6 miles from where I work. The place I lived before that was about 10 miles from work. Most of the people I work with live less that 45 min away. The car I use to go back and forth is just a beater. It was my grandfather's last car. For the most part, it goes back and forth to where I work, and otherwise just takes up space in my driveway. You could replace it with a glassed-in golf cart, and I would barely notice. (Actually, a golf cart might ride smoother...) When I go out with my wife and kids on the weekend, we take the family car.

My point here is, the ongoing litanies about how hard it would be to reduce emissions by replacing gas-powered cars just doesn’t wash. We could replace quite a few gas-guzzlers by simply making affordable electrics available. The trick is, they don’t need to be high performance. I don't need a car that will do 0-60 in under a minute to get back and forth to work. In fact, the highest speed limit between work and home for me is 45mph.

Now I know this isn't the case for many other folks out there. I also know people who spend over an hour on the highway to get to work every day. But if these disparate groups represent thirds or even quarters of the driving population, there’s an opportunity to put a big dent in our carbon footprint. I don’t think the solution to these problems is one-size fits all. It’s obvious that we need more fuel-efficient cars, better public transport, and more emphasis on pedestrian traffic. Beyond that, we could reduce emissions with more careful city planning. Traffic circles would reduce commute time, and cut down on idling engines. And, incidentally, the only reason grandpa’s beater hasn’t been replaced with a bicycle is the lack of sidewalks or bike lanes on very busy roads between here and work.

Got Roots? An update...
Back in March I suggested that gardening just might be the secret to sustainable, healthy living. Last weekend my wife and I took the kids outside and started our simple container garden. We started with blackberries, rhubarb, strawberries and mint. We'll probably add more before the summer. We spent the day working and playing in the yard. We even ate our dinner outside. It was the best night's sleep we'd had in a long time.

Gliese 581 C

Astronomers at the Geneva Observatory recently announced the discovery of what might be a terrestrial planet in around the star Gliese 581 in the constellation, While there’s still some debate about just how much solid ground there might be up there, it is interesting to see the progress we’ve made in our picture of the universe.

Four centuries ago, Galileo Galilei ran afoul of the Catholic Church for upholding the idea of a heliocentrism. We’ve since learned that even our Sun isn’t the center of the universe. It’s not even the center of our own galaxy for that matter. Now we’re closer to finding evidence that our solar system isn’t wholly unique in having terrestrial planets.

The discovery of a terrestrial planet in another solar system, some 20 light years away, fills in the edges of our biggest map in some very important ways. And it wasn’t all that long ago that we had a hard time getting a reliable map of someplace right here on Earth! (Really, not long ago at all. The last time I downloaded driving directions to somewhere… but I digress.)

Physicist Steven Hawking has said that in order to survive, the human species must go into space. Finding terrestrial planets outside our own solar system is certainly a step in the right direction, but we shouldn’t get too excited about looking for a westward passage to China just yet. In order to seriously explore the challenges of interstellar travel, we've got to establish a foothold in space right here in our own solar system.

It's also been said that if we can get into orbit, we're halfway to anywhere. In this case, I think the "we" is most important. We need established and functioning bases in orbit or on the moon, and we need to test our legs on Mars. By the time we get those things accomplished, planet hunting astronomers should have a pretty good selection of interstellar destinations to choose from.

The Automotive X Prize

On April 2, the X Prize Foundation announced the new Automotive X Prize http://auto.xprize.org/. Like the recently awarded Ansari X Prize for space flight, this prize will go to the first group to successfully demonstrate a car that gets 100mpg, or equivalent energy usage, and is an economically viable production model. The group has already been fielding inquiries from well-known and unknown automakers alike. The foundation was inspired by similar competitions in history, like the Orteig Prize. Charles Lindbergh won the Orteg in 1927 by being the first to fly non-stop from New York to Paris. Funds for the X prizes are supplied by a collection of forward thinking corporations and entrepreneurs.

Announcement of the new X prize came on the same day of the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency. The lawsuit included a number of states and organizations frustrated with the Bush Administrations lack of action on global warming. The court’s 5-4 ruling asserts that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. This is in contrast not only the Bush Administration’s position, but to the stated position of the EPA as well. However the court has yet to rule on whether the Agency is in fact required to regulate emissions. Furthermore, a set of standards by which to regulate these emissions would also have to be agreed upon by Congress and the White House.

I’m struck by the contrast in these two announcements. Both reflect the growing concern in our culture over the environment, yet they each represent a very different approach, and pace of change. On the one hand we have the gears of bureaucratic democracy and judiciary slowly responding to public pressure, and on the other we have the enthusiasm of competition and the race to be first in something new.

The winner of the new Automotive X Prize is anybodies guess at this point. But another interesting contest is being played out here. The role of influencing change in our technology and even our culture for the betterment of our environment is in question. Historically, culture and especially market forces move much faster than legislation or justice. But in the end, it’s likely that both governments and the private sector will find some role to play. Maybe for once, the real winners will be consumers and the environment.

Get in touch with your roots

I humbly offer you a seemingly unrelated set of questions that have been bugging me of late:

One: With all the discussion about our impact on the environment and our need to adopt more sustainable living practices, what does a sustainable culture really look like?

Two: How can we effectively combat the growing trend of obesity in youth in the developed countries?

Three: How can we effectively care for soldiers struggling with the emotional problems caused by the trauma of war?

I submit that all three of these questions are related by their answer: Plant vegetable gardens.

Tens of thousands of years of evolution shaped us to be successful as hunter-gatherers, and thousands more have molded our agrarian skills. For millions of years, we humans had our hands in the dirt. We worked, physically laboring with simple tools, working with the forces of nature and other living things. The force of natural selection demanded that we be good at these things. And yet, most of us no longer do any of them.

So lets get down to just what planting a vegetable garden will do to help with such diverse problems. The first one is simple. Food grown in your own yard doesn’t have to be shipped on a truck to your local grocery store. Now unless you can manage a really ambitious garden, you won’t be putting those folks out of work. You’ll still need to run down there for a few things you can’t grow where you live, or can’t grow enough of; but you’ll maybe buy a little less.

But on to the next problem: childhood obesity. Hey, for that matter, I could stand to eat better myself! Homegrown vegetables taste better. And kids who get to pick those veggies, (I know from first hand experience) are actually more excited about eating them. Imagine how much more excited they would be if they actually helped plant and cultivate them. Now we’re teaching work ethic AND good eating habits. This is all to say nothing of the fact that gardening is exercise.

Now maybe you’re with me so far, but how about those vets, you ask? As a veteran myself, this is a subject close to home. I can’t even imagine what some of those young men and women go through. And yet, for all our bumper stickers in support of the troops, it seems, those most in need are the easiest to forget. Many have to learn to walk, or talk or use prosthetics or just function on a daily basis, all over again. Imagine what it could mean for someone to take the time to teach him or her how to nurture a seed. To watch it grow. To nurture something with the same time and care they so desperately need themselves.

Now I’ve already been shopping for some new terra-cotta pots for the container garden I’ll start in the spring. I looked up the local Farmer’s Market, and I’ve even found someone at work who sells farm-fresh eggs. But if you’re still not sold, then I’ll give you one simple thing to do. This coming fall, get yourself a little bucket, or basket, even and old butter tub will do. Drive, or if you can, walk to the nearest clump of woods you can find. Look alongside farmer’s fields, or along the edges of tree-lines. Hunt for berries.

Raspberries, blackberries, or mulberries; they’re all delicious. Careful you don’t pick anything poisonous. If you don’t know, ask someone who does. You’ll get scratches from brush and thorns. Your fingers will be stained with juice, and your feet might even get wet. Your legs will ache from trudging around in the woods, using muscles you’d forgotten you had. But they will be the best tasting berries you’ve had. Sweeter. Brighter. Better.

Yesterday I ran across this site, and would you believe, there are folks out there who think that a "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" is the right way to go. And yes, they are serious. Just as the name implies, their basic philosophy is that human beings have such a negative impact on the "natural environment" of planet Earth, that we should voluntarily stop breeding and let the human race die out, so that the Earth can return to it's "natural state."

OK, I can sympathize with the notion that human civilization is overtaxing our environment to the point of disastrous consequence, but none-the-less, I find a few holes in their theory:

I've already addressed the notion that human beings are not so divorced from the "natural environment" as these folks seem to think. Nor would we be the first creatures to massively impact our environment to the point of causing other species, and even ourselves, to go extinct. So I won't dwell on that here.

I also find this idea more than just a little shortsighted. Sooner or later, this planet will become un-inhabitable through some very "natural" means. Near-Earth object, Gamma radiation, wandering black holes, or the end of our own sun, take your pick. Life on Earth is a limited engagement, even if we human beings do clean up our act. Human being actually represent the best chance for life on Earth being transplanted elsewhere in the Universe, and hence, averting that end to life as we know it. To let life simply be winked out would certainly be natural, but hardly desirable. I like being alive. So does my dog. So does that squirrel in my back yard.

If I had to choose between being tortured to death tomorrow, or never having been born, I'd take the torture. Better to live and die horribly, than not to live at all.

Thankfully, these folks do have a sense of humor. They realize the futility of trying to convince billions of human beings to stop breeding. But I can't help feeling that their effort might be better spent on another front. If human beings can come to dominate, irrevocably alter, and ultimately threaten the whole of the global environment without really trying to do so, what could we accomplish if we had our minds set on living sustainably within our environment? It's not as if the Environmental movement has been around long enough to really make an impact, either culturally, or environmentally. Both of those things take a great deal of time. And even if we are fumbling at this point, there are people working for change.

Al Gore's new book/movie "An Inconvenient Truth" may be bubbling with political overtones, but there’s also real substance there. The would-be president seems genuinely committed to educating people about the realities of climate change. And people are listening to him. If he changes the thinking of enough people, he may even swing enough votes to win in an electoral college.

At the same time, more and more hybrid and electric cars are reaching the market. There’ve been many to decry this as a false start. Hydrogen and electric power still use fossil fuels in their production, so these cars aren’t yet the cleanly fueled transport we hoped for. And yet, by purchasing these cars, consumers are sending a message to industry that consumers want ecologically sound products. Industry rarely misses a chance to exploit the fullest potential of a market.

Tenure

In a recent talk, Steven Hawking expressed the need for humanity to colonize other worlds in order to avoid extinction. He spoke specifically about the eminent threats to human survival, like asteroid collisions and nuclear war, as well as the development of near light travel. He also spoke of his own determination to go into space.

It struck me while reading about this talk, that colonizing other worlds would involve a lot more than just the technology to get there. We would need to survive there. And even a planet that already supports life of some kind isn't likely to have everything on hand that human beings would need to survive. It's most likely that we would need to engineer environments on new worlds to make homes for ourselves. A biosphere transplant.

The leading Paleontologist Richard Leakey, in a speech at Cameron University in 2001, stressed the need to preserve genetic diversity of species "in order to ensure our tenure on this planet." I think he's right, and I would also take that a step further. We need to preserve genetic diversity of species in order to ensure our tenure in the universe. The worlds we may find to call home outside this solar system will almost certainly run the full spectrum of environments that can support life. To create viable biospheres on such worlds, we may need creatures as diverse as carrier pigeons and woolly mammoths. All the more reason for us to be careful with our environment.

Family Ecology Lessons

When my daughter sees a spider, she runs to me or her mother and urgently whispers, “There’s a spider over there, but don’t kill it!” Without trying very hard, I’d impressed a simple ecological lesson on her. When a spider appeared in our house, I used to scoop it up and take it outside. “Spiders,” I explained to her, “eat mosquitoes, so they’re very helpful bugs.”

Like most little girls, my daughter thinks spiders are “yucky,” but she likes mosquito bites even less. So she’s learned to value something for which she has a very natural revulsion. She also knows not to touch the spiders herself, a lesson that didn’t need much reinforcement. So she has a balanced attitude toward spiders. She’s developing some good ecological attitudes.

More recently, I’ve learned that your average house-spider is actually not well adapted to the outdoors at all. They also eat a lot more than just mosquitoes. Fleas, bed bugs and other pesky little blood-sucking bugs are on the menu too. As it turns out, I needed to learn a few things about spiders myself. My own ecological views needed some work. But as a well-meaning person whose information was a little off, I’m hardly alone.

I once worked for a conservation district. The district’s managers had planted a small grove of trees specifically for harvest. The idea is, you plant a grove of trees in recovered farmland. The trees provide a habitat for the years they are in place, and help with the ecological recovery of the farmland. Eventually, you harvest some or all of these trees and plant more. This cycle is closer to what would happen in nature than clear-cutting, the trees provide some revenue to keep the conservation district going, and helps protect old growth forests from logging by providing a ready source of timber.

But many of their volunteers saw the conservation district as participating in the evils of the logging industry. To them, it was flat out wrong. They couldn’t see the environment as a dynamic thing, and they couldn’t imagine human beings as being able to play a mutually beneficial role in the environment. It was like the “leave only footprints” idea run-amok.

But nature won’t wait for us to get it. Nature won’t wait for us to adapt to it. It’s adapting to us all the time. Just have a look at the parking lot of your local grocery store. I bet you’ll find sea gulls. Even in Oklahoma. They are finding their niche in the human ecology. Right along side domesticated dogs and sewer rats, other animals are adapting to us. Its interesting that, even while some people are slow to catch on to the idea that human beings are shaping their environment, the rest of the natural world is wasting no time in adapting to us at all.

I just read an article about some exciting new research into Panspermia; alien bacteria, and red rain, and the origins of life. The researchers claim that this phenomenon points to the possibility of life here on Earth having extraterrestrial origins. Well, I'm sorry to say it, but I'm here to rain on that parade...

This idea, like a number of others, smacks of a kind of neo-creationism. These ideas are gaining currency with some otherwise well-meaning folks who simply don't have a good foundation in the sciences. I'm guessing that they are more enamored by science that religion, but are still looking for that awe-inspiring revelation about the meaning of life. But even this idea is a bit far-fetched.

Take the whole pyramids-built-by-aliens-theory. They say that cultures all over the world were building pyramids at roughly the same time, so they must have been connected, or inspired by the same culture. Ever make a pile of
stones? High as you could make it? Was it cone or pyramid shaped? The similarity is just based on having to obey the same laws of physics with similar levels of technology.

Similarly, while it's theoretically possible that life evolved elswhere in the universe and somehow survived in space to germinate life here, it strikes me as VERY unlikely. Space is a highly volatile environment. Life is much more probable in a homeo-rythmic environment, like the ones found on planets or moons with relatively stable orbits. Read me carefully here, Those conditions may be extreme compared to what humans need, hot, cold or what-have-you, but they are almost always within a stable set of cyclic conditions. The odds are much greater that life on Earth evolved right here, in just such an environment.

More to the point, even if it were true, it doesn't change anything. The search for the origin of life, on Earth or in the Universe, will still be important for all the same reasons. Finding life on the moons of Jupiter or some other forbidding place in the galaxy will teach us about our own origins, and the potential for life elsewhere in the universe, whether we are related or not. Four billion years ago, when life first appeared on Earth, this planet was no more hospitable than Venus, Mars or any of a handful of Jovian moons. The same laws of physics apply. So anywhere we find life surviving, or thriving, teaches us about the parameters of life. So much of our planet's condition today is regulated by the presence of life, it's difficult to imagine it as just another planet.

In any event, the actual answers to the origin of life here will probably also remain equally elusive. We may find many clues, but never have a solid answer. So why does matter? That's easier to answer. In a world where science education is suffering the set-backs of budget-cuts and attacks by the proponents of Intelligent Design, I think it's important to have some focus. Popular science is a fantastic tool for educating and rallying support for research, but I think it works best when not watered down.

A Philosophy of Natural Humanism

During my first years of college, I began to study things like ecology and evolution as a matter of personal curiosity. I found the interwoven layers of natural systems enchanting. I was pulled in by the exchange of breathable air between plant and animal; the evolutionary balance of population between predator and prey; migrations in tune with seasonal weather changes. I came under the spell of complex systems of energy exchange. Ecosystems became the cathedrals of my mind.

What I couldn’t understand was the reaction of most other people to those same things. They were either unimpressed by it, or they insisted on it being the creation of some otherworldly being. They needed something outside this already fantastical universe to be the focus of their sense of spiritual awe. The reasons for that are really complex themselves, but at the time, I just quipped to myself, “Maybe if mother nature could build her own rockets to go out into space, people would be impressed…” And that’s when I realized, she has.

Human beings are after all, a product of the same natural and evolutionary forces that shaped every other living thing on this planet. And just as a termite mound in Africa are thereby a product of evolution, so is the space shuttle. I’ll grant you that the orbital module is a bit more complex than a termite mound, but then, a termite mound is arguably more efficient and better organized than the average human dwelling, so let’s not get too high on our horse here. The point is, they are all products of nature.

So in spite of the imaginary lines we might draw between ourselves and the rest of nature, outside our domesticated sphere, human culture is a natural thing. Our hunting trails have become paved roads, our nests have become houses with windows and doors, and cooperative hunting and gathering have become a complex system of agriculture and divided labor. Human culture has evolved, but still, we are a product of nature.

So here we are, the hairless cousins of apes and we can build roads and rockets. So what? What does that mean? Scientific inquiry has provided us with a new cosmology, but unlike the religious traditions of our culture, it prescribes no direction. It offers no destiny. It gives us no meaning to it all. And that’s really the scary part. The truth will not set you free: There isn’t a meaning. We have to decide that for ourselves.

That’s no easy task, and one as likely to produce as much disagreement as religion. But if we are to decide the course of human culture based on this new cosmology, we should do so from within that perspective. We should learn what termite mounds and tudor cottages have in common. We should also look at the flight of birds, and the flight of rockets. If we live immersed in an understanding of our culture as a part of the natural world, we will be better equipped to give our culture a meaning that we can all share.

In the opinion of people who’s opinions count in such matters, natural philosophy begins with an Ionian Greek philosopher named Thales. In reference to this shcool of thought, a much younger naturalist, E. O. Wilson, coined the phrase, “Ionian Enchantment” to describe an enchantment with nature such I’ve shared above. And with that, I offer this:

The Ionian Garden

I’ve put Jehova to bed with all the other gods of childhood, like Old Saint Nick, and the monster in my closet. They are good for nostalgic stories, or maybe even a moral lesson or two. Mother Earth is the only one left to me now.

She is nothing like they say. She is Kali without a mind; all arms and legs, giving birth and devouring without reason. She is us and everything that lives. She loves without malice, and kills without lust. She is beautiful. She is you.

I could not paint her likeness or shape her form in clay. But we could plant a garden to echo her movement. A garden of Ionian Enchantment. We could make our home there. But we have a lot of planting to do.