does consciousness weigh anything?
I smoked a cigarette today on my fire escape and right about puked. I am wearing a Cowichan indian sweater that is too warm for the weather. It is too big for me, it belonged to my granddad. It has been zipped up in plastic as though he's never worn it before. He used to always put on a thick jacket or big sweater and a hat before a smoke outside on the stoop. I thought I would christen this sweater with a cigarette from the open pack I took from his room after he died. I miss him, I wish I had asked him more questions. My throat hurts.
creamy nail polish
creamy grey clouds and starlings
idle but deadly
"Idle but deadly" is on the pack of cigarettes. I miss my grandma too, I think if I had explained to her buddhism she would have accepted that she was the closest thing to a buddhist nun without taking any vows. She taught me to never kill insects, instead let them outside if they're intimidating so they can "do their work". She taught me even the scariest looking spider is more scared of me. She taught me that hate is never worth it, never. I still save worms from the sidewalk when it rains, and I'm 26 years old. Being this age and continuing this tradition causes people to think I'm strange. I don't know what age has to do with it.
if knowledge is time
why fear the harmless creatures
while we grow older
My family never really talks about either of them. I understand it's difficult but it makes me feel like they never existed. I wonder if they still do. I have heard scientific basis for the spirit or soul or mind continuing on as ordered energy. The more I read of it the less it makes any sense which is a letdown. The "white light" people interpret during a near death experience has been proved as your stressed brain, deprived of oxygen, pooling its firing ability into our most primitive areas. The visual cortex and brainstem: When only these are stimulated all we perceive is light. As a brain re-engages, the closest lobe to these areas is the temporal (memory). We experience the most emotional, deeply rooted memories thus our life flashes. Current neuroscience explains seemingly mystical experiences. But if consciousness, as some believe, is a form of energy separate from the brain, and if energy cannot be created nor destroyed... can it remain ordered though our bodies die? Do not mistake my curiosity for religion. Philosophical, maybe. First I would entertain physics combined with neuroanatomy but maybe I'd rather not prove/disprove possibilities in this case. I could come up with a solid haiku for this train of thought. For fear of not doing the subject justice I won't.
creamy nail polish
creamy grey clouds and starlings
idle but deadly
"Idle but deadly" is on the pack of cigarettes. I miss my grandma too, I think if I had explained to her buddhism she would have accepted that she was the closest thing to a buddhist nun without taking any vows. She taught me to never kill insects, instead let them outside if they're intimidating so they can "do their work". She taught me even the scariest looking spider is more scared of me. She taught me that hate is never worth it, never. I still save worms from the sidewalk when it rains, and I'm 26 years old. Being this age and continuing this tradition causes people to think I'm strange. I don't know what age has to do with it.
if knowledge is time
why fear the harmless creatures
while we grow older
My family never really talks about either of them. I understand it's difficult but it makes me feel like they never existed. I wonder if they still do. I have heard scientific basis for the spirit or soul or mind continuing on as ordered energy. The more I read of it the less it makes any sense which is a letdown. The "white light" people interpret during a near death experience has been proved as your stressed brain, deprived of oxygen, pooling its firing ability into our most primitive areas. The visual cortex and brainstem: When only these are stimulated all we perceive is light. As a brain re-engages, the closest lobe to these areas is the temporal (memory). We experience the most emotional, deeply rooted memories thus our life flashes. Current neuroscience explains seemingly mystical experiences. But if consciousness, as some believe, is a form of energy separate from the brain, and if energy cannot be created nor destroyed... can it remain ordered though our bodies die? Do not mistake my curiosity for religion. Philosophical, maybe. First I would entertain physics combined with neuroanatomy but maybe I'd rather not prove/disprove possibilities in this case. I could come up with a solid haiku for this train of thought. For fear of not doing the subject justice I won't.
the more you learn the less you know
anomalously,
humans behave, humans learn
permission required
visual wisdom
exploring a world of sound
a deep end lesson
i see the same misunderstandings between humans and all other humans and for this matter, all other life on earth. when we reach a goal we reuse the process of how we came to accomplish it. this is a form of language. this is a piece of evolution. to reach understanding between people, who by all observable indications cannot relate, we must confront two aspects. the obvious communication barrier and our individual cognitive development -guided by different processes for integration of the same information. this is as true for autistics on the spectrum as it is true for people of different cultures, generations and interests
with a stable mind
a question lead to questions
circling the same goal
Behaviour: Manifestations of Principles
I was thinking of war today and about children, and of the link between joy-killing a bird with a slingshot versus joy-killing a human in illegal combat. Seems that people capable of developing this behaviour lack capability of introspection to some degree. In wars case, brainwashing aside, there is something very normal about becoming a sociopathic soldier.
Can a conscience based on logic alone really be considered a conscience if there is no analysis of the decision, or factoring-in of the circumstance? If this is the case, then provisions of consequence are absent while self gratification overcompensates.
Children develop morality partially through adoption and internalization of standards of their environment. Development of morality can be thought of as a stabilization project; an individuals identification with values, as well as recognition of certain behaviour that facilitate survival among their species. A children's perception of what moral code is, depends on others reactions to a behaviour, or observing those who violate a code etc etc. Learning to resist temptations to transgress in the event of a 'moral dilemma' is part of this process too.
If no guilt emerges after a behaviour or in anticipation of possible punishment, then relief is bound as result of the behaviour. The feeling of relief gives an impression of happiness. This becomes the impulse to the behaviour, so the 'moral-standard' is considered less effective or competent. Repetition of the behaviour gains the individual a relief feeling, it may become a form of mild addiction, favouritism. In early stages of cognitive development, rewarded behaviour (considered beneficial) solidifies a foundation for emotional and intellectual growth. In a no-perceived-guilt circumstance, components of normal development are coerced by "good" reward for "bad" behaviour. I'll call it growth through reward-punishment based judgement. Conditioning to the 'good feeling for bad behaviour' occurs thus the need for stronger stimuli. If the behaviour is amplified in this way through to adulthood, it has potential to evolve into a condition, a behaviour with intentions distinguishable from the original behaviour. I probably need to explain or elaborate on this train of thought, but it's my blog so deal.
If no guilt emerges after a behaviour or in anticipation of possible punishment, then relief is bound as result of the behaviour. The feeling of relief gives an impression of happiness. This becomes the impulse to the behaviour, so the 'moral-standard' is considered less effective or competent. Repetition of the behaviour gains the individual a relief feeling, it may become a form of mild addiction, favouritism. In early stages of cognitive development, rewarded behaviour (considered beneficial) solidifies a foundation for emotional and intellectual growth. In a no-perceived-guilt circumstance, components of normal development are coerced by "good" reward for "bad" behaviour. I'll call it growth through reward-punishment based judgement. Conditioning to the 'good feeling for bad behaviour' occurs thus the need for stronger stimuli. If the behaviour is amplified in this way through to adulthood, it has potential to evolve into a condition, a behaviour with intentions distinguishable from the original behaviour. I probably need to explain or elaborate on this train of thought, but it's my blog so deal.
Morality exists or can be established socially and internally and is treated through experience. Moral obligation however, can be an external expectation in a different way: As an owing to a given set of standards which can also deter a certain behaviour not through guilt or punishment, but through conformity. Toxic human behaviour can be taught and contained using the same method. Who would make better students for war than humans who already confuse unacceptable external stimuli with normal cognitive interactions.
Hollow Scene: Epoch immorality
Polar bears: They swim great lengths out of desperation, out of starvation, and become exhausted on a search for floating ice to hunt from. If they do find a berg, it is more than likely it has become too thin to support their weight. They end up treading water or searching frantically, now for land, until they die.
I do not care whether you feel bad, do not flatter yourself. I do not care about you at all. Wait I lied. You make me so, so angry and if there were less of you the world would be better, just a little.
Let me give you your perspective: You cannot be held personally responsible for polar bear extinction. You are only a person with a job in a house, you have responsibilities, interests, you can't wait for the weekend. We all just blindly purchased GE'd groceries that have not been shown to have any negative effects on humans, nor have they been properly tested to prove there are no negative effects on humans. You can speak coherently about politics and hey, you're worldly, you've backpacked like a total. badass. These bits of life combined make you an accomplished adult human. You are no doubt busy with important things. You're comfortable enough with yourself that you do not feel obligated to dwell extensively on polar bear extinction. In no immediate way does polar bear lifestyle interest you. You do not have much to learn from them. You only use fuels that contribute to their habitat destruction because you have to, you don't exactly mean to, what else would you do? Did I mention you're busy? I get it, me too. Someone will handle it, or not. Come on, they're polar bears, it is sad I guess? What do you want me to say? It's not like I was ever going to travel to Antarctica to visit them anyway.
Did I manage to insult you? I highly doubt it. Either way, what do you care what my opinions of you are. You are clever enough, you probably guessed this is an analogy for something I will talk about starting now-ish. Though first-off, for the record, I love polar bears and take their demise personally. I am responsible for their deaths because I am. This is fact. I refuse to dilute the extent to which I am responsible just because you, and the entire human population are also responsible. That is no way to behave or think logically. Some advice: I will not try to stop polar bear extinction, neither will you, but stop with the removal of responsibility to others and ultimately to yourself. Care more. I cannot put blame to someone else for not doing more about it, when I have done nothing. I do not expect "the government" to solve any dilemma of this sort, that would be cyclical-thinking on my part and I will no longer be a contributor to that nonsense, dead-end mental state. I do not blame the Planet Earth series for not "getting" to more people, they try with those episodes to make you care. For a half hour after watching them, you did. I blame myself entirely, if I do not feel personally responsible then I do not care, my involvement would dissolve and I would be you. And that would feel much worse than guilt. Essentially it would mean I would be, in no active way, a part of an urgent need for a shift of mentality. Or rather a shift in morality.
"What good is knowledge if you do not intend to use it."
- David Suzuki
To be aware of something does not prove your intelligence, to have a solution or the motivation to think creatively about a topic is useless and selfish until you apply this skill. Or until you get someone aroused enough to make two people who care in place of one.
Humans have this phenomenal, unhealthy obsession with circles. Like a tiger pacing in captivity, we seem to be frustrated and we are right to feel trapped. After all, we are born into our situation and since we've lived this way our entire lives, we are not equipped to fully understand the reason we are frustrated. Humans have developed some terrible habits which have been successfully rooted in every generation. Even at the risk of these habits killing us, we continue with them. Even if we choose not to see any obvious connection between our habits and global issues, but understand that they are present, we continue with the same behaviour. There are circumstances involved that we are possibly not aware of because they are seemingly unrelated. I'll bet you think polar bears have nothing to do with this.
We are so, so capable until money becomes a conflict of interest. Why bother predicting an outcome if we do not follow-up by taking precautions to prepare for it? Or forget that entirely- think about now: How do we face a present-day crisis... work out a viable solution/plan... only to let the issue go on another 30 years without implementation of our findings? Now, because we've managed to ignore universal crisis for so long, there is continuous accumulation of entirely new issues that are also out of control as they continue to react with one another. And we help it along this path, we are guiding ourselves into the eye of this storm by passively allowing terrible decisions to be made by people who lack souls. Let me assume you do not care about the future of other peoples children, I'm sure as shit not having any of my own with what's ahead. You want to know, how does this affect you?
Pharming is (put very simply) a term used to describe recombinant DNA technology where foreign genes are introduced to a subject. This can be plant or animal and the idea is to produce a pharmaceutical drug cheaply and in large quantities, these products of course intended for human consumption. Pharming is a form of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering for example, allows us to make a plant more resistant to insects, or frost, or to pesticides... so more chemicals can be applied to the plant without killing it. Not bad for production, but you're ingesting it. This is not hypothetical and while still very much in a research-stage, genetic engineering is common. In fact any food that is processed has been genetically engineered in some form. For now, lets not even consider the effects of consuming GE products over a lifetime, and lets definatley not think about what effects these have on children during early development (what's the rush? We'll find out in 15 years). Let us not think about the fact that yes, certain GE corn pollen has proven lethal to monarch caterpillars. Lets not even consider comparing the rise in diseases and cancers since the introduction of GE products. Lastly, let us not mistake GE foods with the cramming of antibiotics into animals from the day they are born to help ward of potential sickness the animal may or may not contract, that could spread throughout a herd and cost the Pharmer lots. Of. Money.
Do you know what effects GE products pumped with antibiotics has on humans who eat them? No. Of course you don't. Nor does anyone. I definitely have some ideas as to what we could be dealing with: Introducing foreign genetic material has the ability to produce an array of different proteins that an organisms body could either use erroneously to cause mutations, or reject, causing a body to essentially attack itself. You eat this animal with its unknown effects from being genetically engineered, and unknown to you further are the effects it has on you. It doesn't have to affect you on a large, terrifying scale to be unhealthy or dangerous. Not so unrelated to this, Aids developed from humans eating monkey brains, MAD cow disease developed from cattle eating sheep material infected with scrapie. Scrapie is not transmissible to humans from sheep. But after being consumed by a cow, and that cow being ingested by humans, we have ourselves infected with a disease that attacks our own central nervous system much the same way scrapie affects sheep. But that is an entire discussion on its own.
Stop believing our government, or a business, or even laboratory scientists have our best interest at heart. There are no strict regulations on (mis)use of these technologies, you are not protected by many laws. The name of their game is money but fortunately you can to take responsibility for your own health and safety.
Breeze through this with me, a crop grows GE feed intended for *pharm animals to consume. Crops yielding these products cannot be absolutely contained, so GE products of this sort, though not intended for human consumption, may very well end up in a neighbouring crop or in the wild where it can reproduce and have success for at least 70 years. That's the best case senario. The animals themselves are also GE, before ingesting their GE feed, to aquire certain traits that would otherwise not be expressed. These traits can be taken from within the species or crossed with different species. It is called Transgenisis. On top of this they are also raised on a combination of antibiotics. I forgot to mention hormones and steroids. Some animals cannot develop properly without steroids due to the enclosure/environment. By the time this animal is packaged and in your home, can you actually qualify this product as real meat? Does the manipulation that the animal undergoes at each stage of its life outweigh the benefits of eating this by a certain point? I stopped eating meat when I was 10 because it made me sad, because like all kids I loved animals THISMUCH. I cannot tell you how happy I am to have been such a weakling-child. I'll take iron deficiency over cellular mutation any day. From a business perspective, why would they bother doing long-term studies on animal products when they can churn out product twice as fast and make profit instead? A business would not fund such research. Cutting corners is exactly how these products got to the market in the first place. What about the government? No. Certainly not the Pharmer. I'll give you another hint: No one. People have even gone out of their way to keep labels off GE products, so you really aren't given any choice but to be subjected as if it were an experiment. It took a few lawsuits, but in Europe GE products must be labelled. A ban of GE products throughout Europe is the goal. As G. Brunk stated, "When it comes to human and environmental safety, there should be clear evidence of the absence of risks. The mere absence of evidence is not enough". Give some thought to drawbacks of GE products:
-Proteins produced by GE genes may be allergens (cause allergies)
-Protein production via new genetic combinations with unknown effects
-Resistance to GE pesticides developing among "pests"
-Human resistance to antibiotics
-Exchange of genetic material between transgenic crops and related plant species (uncontrolled reproduction between "wild" and GE plants)
-Unknown impacts on non-target (non human) species
-Unknown affects overall on humans
-Little research on development in children
-Domination of food companies (farms that refuse to go GE cannot stay in business)
I love genetics. I love biology. I love technology. I love the environment. I hate the intentions with these domains currently. Incredible, wonderful things can be done with GE research. Genome sequencing no doubt helps us to realize possibilities that range from unimaginable to beautiful. We have so much potential, but little of this potential is being used with your/my benefit in mind. It kills me to know that this is the reality regarding biotechnologies. Discoveries are being used dangerously and selfishly. Decisions on their (mis)use and go-to-market dates are being made by non-scientists who will later claim ignorance for their destructive ways. The objective with regards to these decisions is money, not your health or your future. This incredible irresponsibly translates as motive of companies, not consumers. Is there is no market for a solution? It seems too expensive? When did health of a population become a question of profit? Are we really allowing ourselves to discredit... ourselves... in this way? Not to make it about me but does anyone feel as embarrassed as I do to live like this? And on a side note, is anyone even aware that the senate just turned down a bill, the Climate Change Accountability Act last week to decrease emissions by 2020? Is that what you would call a democratic decision? Please take responsibility for yourselves, no one will do this for you. "It's okay to make decisions on behalf of the people, even if it is to their detriment, so long as they aren't aware that there is a choice". I suppose I stand corrected but that doesn't mean I will abide.
For the first time in all of human history we are capable morally, technologically and intellectually to redirect detrimental human practices on a global scale. We can literally fix problems we created for ourselves over the span of hundreds of years. Not only can we preserve nature more effectively and without giving up our "lifestyle standard", but we are able to benefit the environment with these new technologies and practices to secure a future for ourselves, our children and most importantly the rest of life on earth. This is all fact, all possible and entirely up to you.
Today, we can confirm what practices need to change (and how) by analysing climactic records dating back 200,000 years. These records explain in detail how earth systems function without human interaction or interferrance. We extract exact measurements of C02 levels from minuscule gas bubbles in core samples taken from glaciers. In examining different layers, we determine varying levels of C02 (and other gases) at any given time going back thousands of years. Similar technology uses isotopes to measure temperature trends and fluctuations. Comparing this data to recent climactic activity helps us to better understand the atmospheres behaviour and allows for speculation on what affect human activity has on it presently. For the first time in thousands of years our near future looks absolutely, devastatingly, unmistakabley, unpredictable. We can say with certainty these problems are primarily human-created. It is also certain we are gambling with catastrophic outcomes. Countries of the world, in less than 40 years our planet will have become a painful place to be. No amount of SPF will save you from skin cancers and there will be no predicting storms. Water shortages and nutritional value/health standard of food products are the only aspects that should scare us more. It will no longer matter who is to blame, please take personal responsibility.
We have precious capsules of ancient atmosphere, literally thousands of years old, indirectly explaining exactly what needs to be done. They are melting faster than any glaciologist can predict. Pieces of ancient information like gas bubble in glaciers are tools that can help us. We must continue to research things like ocean core samples and all biological processes so we can learn to work with our environment instead of simply raping from it more than can be sustained. Genethics should be revised, genetic engineering should not be stopped, it should be given the respect it deserves. I fear the interests in its qualities now will continue in the wrong direction, it will become a tactic of war. The wiser we are today with such delicate yet powerful tools, the easier it will be to use them effectively and for a greater purpose.
I'm tired of writing so forgive me if this seems disconnected or cut-off: Issues like polar bear extinction, disease on the rise, misinformation or concealment, erratic migratory behaviour, unpredictable salmon runs, unusual weather worldwide... consider these warnings. Consider that they will become much worse in our lifetime. They are many, they are not subtle and they are consistently growing in synch with our population and tolerance of weak economic frameworks. Ignoring these issues does not justify your behaviour. Reliance on "someone else" to change translates as your consent to conduct this circus.
click on me
click on me
Hypesynthesis
I went to Chapters today on behalf of a boy. I want a book focused on wind energy so I looked in the "Science and Technology" section then the "Environment" section, I also looked in "Engineering". I used the computer and several books came up, not one was in stock and half of them were unavailable to order. The ones available to order were roughly $300. They were textbooks which si fine except textbooks I can find in a library but also, textbooks on wind energy are (in my experience) for people who study engineering or marketing specifically. I want a wind energy introduction book. Something that would cover wind energy generally and broadly, but doesn't leave out its mechanics or economic worth. I figured a store like Chapters would have a disgusting amount of solar, wind and geothermal introductory reads... But not one on any of these subjects did I find. If I have to make a point of this rambling I guess it would be that for all the talk about change and clean energy, there sure isn't much available to motivate/interest individuals who want to educate themselves and understand why the future of these are so necessary from every angle. "Google it" I guess.
Everything is round
Show me a square anywhere
When you break it down.
"Clean energy" and "green" are media-flavour-words used by businesses that have caught on to these ideas as a trend. Fortunately companies are portraying themselves as greener and this has a tremendous impact on consumers psychologically... Unfortunately this "trendy" approach to initiating a greenteam is just like the perfect models in advertisements: It's a picture, everything behind what goes into developing that picture is less than inspiring. We will buy the product but our money is not going to any greater cause; the company pays for the green marketing then continues business as usual, distracting us with pseudoslogans and empty promises. It's frustrating because of how desperately we need to implement these ideas regardless of which consumer gives a lick.
Good Humans
[Con't from my last post...] People learn from people like Gary. Correct, you can pick up any text or type into Google what ever question you have of animals: How to hold a scorpion or caiman, even how to humanely kill and freeze large rodents for python-food. I think the first thing I did when I got home from meeting Gary was Google "what is a skink". It lead me on a month long investigation of the evolution of lizards and snakes. But beyond Gary's distracting, intriguing lifestyle exists important subtleties. When you meet someone who represents something you haven't thought of, you detect it immediately. If you choose not to connect with that person it can become something intimidating. Instead of being defensive or critical I've learned to take advantage of this position of unfamiliarity. It can be very useful to understand someone like Gary, when you understand a different perspective you tend to learn something about yourself. Unintentional learning is an experience but to realize you have changed in the process is surreal.
I want to introduce you to Manfred Max-Neef, a chilean economist and environmentalist. He was the first to introduce to me the notion that there even existed an economist who is also an environmentalist. David Suzuki also reminds us that "eco"system and "eco"nomics are the same... we've just lost track of which of the two we humans have control over.
We must understand that current economic strategies no longer provide a coherent framework. If we want to achieve sustainable development we have to be more creative with solutions, more understanding of what an economy is. The current practices are, very simply, not complimentary to the environment. I don't know how to put it more simply because it is a simple concept: Economies rely on the environment, we must have a level of governing for these systems on a global scale. No one country owns air or water, welcome to Earth Systems 101. Even a four year old cannot resist or ignore this awareness. Unfortunately we predict and predict without being phased, we must either be in denial or totally accustomed to procrastination since we fail to recognize our behaviour is a global responsibility. We waste time that we do not have blaming and pointing while shovelling money at temporary solutions to keep certain companies going that face inevitable failure. There must be economic, social and environmental balance to move toward any form of recovery. I see potential for humans through Manfred Max-Neef discussing the importance of love on a political level. Of course one must show compassion to offer any help to any person? Without love for the people how can there be respect for the people? If we don't respect our people how could we have a conscience while making decisions on their behalf? He was also the first in a position of political authority that I'd heard say "I say life, not human beings...".
I shouldn't react so struck by Dr. Manfred Max-Neef. His ideas are not especially overwhelming or new or even tactical. They are clear, simple, logical and delivered with that sexy-adorable chilean accent. They are so easy to understand you have to wonder why this man is so different from everyone else. It is unnerving that situations he places priority on, the objectives politics depend upon, are so foreign to the normal functioning of politics! We should be accustomed to his perspective on development, people and environment. What should shock and disturb us are governments that encourage it's people to pour money into "stuff" and into building when there is no soil from which to grow these "necessities". What this ends up costing is life. You might think 'this isn't affecting me, where is there trouble?'. This is exactly what Manfred talks about when he says "...life, not human beings." I feel the effects everyday because I refuse to ignore the signs. I don't want to walk around oblivious to the bee's on the sidewalk in the middle of summer dancing moronically with confusion. I'll spend the extra dollars on organic, locally grown food because there's a better chance it's not genetically modified. Not that I could ever be sure since our government works with the food industry to keep labels off these products. We're involved deeply in a dangerous experiment, and wether you know it or actively choose not to, we are paying dearly for this irresponsibility.
This vision of worth-through-consuption is inhuman and is not normal. People don't see it because we've diluted our existence with the environment to an existence among the environment. This way, we can remove ourselves from responsibility to maintain all other existing life which allows governments to fulfill the power agenda. If we're happily consuming we're unfocused and attempting to fulfill something we don't understand so it's never ending. If Manfred fearlessly and easily breaks down this compound of issues we spend loads of money on to complicate, why is no one paying any attention if he makes so much sense? Where is his due publicity? He has the answers, he has won awards for these answers and teaches in universities and is a council member of the World Future Council. He is an author and lectures around the world, but no one I know has heard of him? He is best known for elaborations of practicing economics as if people matter. Why ignore his efforts to help us?
No wonder Dr. Suzuki has the weight of the world on his shoulders, he's dealing with a bunch of maggots.
I want to introduce you to Manfred Max-Neef, a chilean economist and environmentalist. He was the first to introduce to me the notion that there even existed an economist who is also an environmentalist. David Suzuki also reminds us that "eco"system and "eco"nomics are the same... we've just lost track of which of the two we humans have control over.
We must understand that current economic strategies no longer provide a coherent framework. If we want to achieve sustainable development we have to be more creative with solutions, more understanding of what an economy is. The current practices are, very simply, not complimentary to the environment. I don't know how to put it more simply because it is a simple concept: Economies rely on the environment, we must have a level of governing for these systems on a global scale. No one country owns air or water, welcome to Earth Systems 101. Even a four year old cannot resist or ignore this awareness. Unfortunately we predict and predict without being phased, we must either be in denial or totally accustomed to procrastination since we fail to recognize our behaviour is a global responsibility. We waste time that we do not have blaming and pointing while shovelling money at temporary solutions to keep certain companies going that face inevitable failure. There must be economic, social and environmental balance to move toward any form of recovery. I see potential for humans through Manfred Max-Neef discussing the importance of love on a political level. Of course one must show compassion to offer any help to any person? Without love for the people how can there be respect for the people? If we don't respect our people how could we have a conscience while making decisions on their behalf? He was also the first in a position of political authority that I'd heard say "I say life, not human beings...".
I shouldn't react so struck by Dr. Manfred Max-Neef. His ideas are not especially overwhelming or new or even tactical. They are clear, simple, logical and delivered with that sexy-adorable chilean accent. They are so easy to understand you have to wonder why this man is so different from everyone else. It is unnerving that situations he places priority on, the objectives politics depend upon, are so foreign to the normal functioning of politics! We should be accustomed to his perspective on development, people and environment. What should shock and disturb us are governments that encourage it's people to pour money into "stuff" and into building when there is no soil from which to grow these "necessities". What this ends up costing is life. You might think 'this isn't affecting me, where is there trouble?'. This is exactly what Manfred talks about when he says "...life, not human beings." I feel the effects everyday because I refuse to ignore the signs. I don't want to walk around oblivious to the bee's on the sidewalk in the middle of summer dancing moronically with confusion. I'll spend the extra dollars on organic, locally grown food because there's a better chance it's not genetically modified. Not that I could ever be sure since our government works with the food industry to keep labels off these products. We're involved deeply in a dangerous experiment, and wether you know it or actively choose not to, we are paying dearly for this irresponsibility.
This vision of worth-through-consuption is inhuman and is not normal. People don't see it because we've diluted our existence with the environment to an existence among the environment. This way, we can remove ourselves from responsibility to maintain all other existing life which allows governments to fulfill the power agenda. If we're happily consuming we're unfocused and attempting to fulfill something we don't understand so it's never ending. If Manfred fearlessly and easily breaks down this compound of issues we spend loads of money on to complicate, why is no one paying any attention if he makes so much sense? Where is his due publicity? He has the answers, he has won awards for these answers and teaches in universities and is a council member of the World Future Council. He is an author and lectures around the world, but no one I know has heard of him? He is best known for elaborations of practicing economics as if people matter. Why ignore his efforts to help us?
Planet Animal: Some people think it's uncool to blog about personal things
Hi Kathryn,
Thank you for contacting us about __________ & Gary _____.
Our show is about people who feel overwhelmed by their large pet families. Would you say Gary feels overwhelmed?
Sincerely,
I won't give out the name, It's not important anyway. It was so unimportant to me at this time that this is how I responded the next day:
Always. In a loving way of course, but definitely overwhelmed. - Kathryn
I should've deduced this was a "show" since she stated "...show..." but instead I spent the next weeks assuming this was a Vancouver Film student doing a documentary. I figured I could get the refuge more local exposure, perhaps give Gary a chance to show off his animals and create some awareness... provoke some thought among the community?
I used to volunteer with an exotic animal rescue society. Feeding alligators and crocodiles, tortoises, ferrets, skinks, sugar-gliders... I love any other species more than Homo sapiens sapiens so I was excited EVERY day to be me. I fell in love with every animal there, including Gary. Then I ran out of savings and had to crawl back to the real world. Back to the world of hospitality where "my pleasure" and "up yours" mean the same thing.
I could only go to the refuge for a few hours here or there- when they changed location my contributions were even less feasible. 100's of precious species + less than a handful of "unexperienced" (as far as wrestling alligators go) animal-lovers to help Gary care for them = never sat well with me. I decided to help from home. Most of the issues are money-related. Most of the animals at the refuge are illegal in BC, they can only legally be under Gary's care with permits as actors, they cannot be viewed by the public. My mission was this: find them jobs. I have been acting, without permission, as their agent on Gary's behalf.
It's been weeks since the first Email, the person I have been in contact with is a recruiter for Discovery channel's Animal Planet. They are filming our casting video to show to the executive producers in a few days.
Who is Gary?
Who is Gary?
Despite the attention from local press and his visions for a' state of the art ecological centre', no person has put themselves through more distress in the name of conservation and for the animals under his care. He wouldn't trade it for women, not his own health... In fact the only problem Gary faces is not that he needs or wants out, it's that he's too concerned with the state of our animal planet, he wants to do more. He takes responsibility for these justifiable and pressing concerns even though they're everyones problems.
To be honest, money would make him feel less overwhelmed. It's not a very creative or interesting solution. Of course this could be accomplished by eliminating some of the species from his family, for example, the two 6 foot alligators or the Savannah tortoises that devour $100's worth if vegetables per week. Gary would rather starve himself than euthanize one of his animals (I can't blame him, they're all intoxicating). Gary has rather unusual permits for these animals that allow him to keep them alive and under his care legally. If certain species did not have such a status Gary would be required by law to send them back to their native environments. He would be required to do this within 6 months of obtaining the animal and funding must come from his own pocket (it is a lot of paperwork and extremely expensive as you can imagine). As I may have mentioned before, most of the animals have come to him born and raised in captivity, not to mention in poor health. If he did have the money to release them into their native environments- to be "free"- they would not survive. His other option according to BC legislation: Euthanasia. Death does not qualify as an option under Gary's definition of "solution".
He also needs man-power. Volunteers, animal-lovers, receptionists, Veterinarians, Animal behavioralists.. all of them willing to work for free or minimal compensation. At least until his "state of the art ecological centre" takes off. I guess this is money-related as well.
Gary doesn't give up, he tries very hard not to become discouraged. Overwhelmed, yes, but if he were to let himself become discouraged by the seemingly endless obstacles that are involved in his mission, the whole operation would go belly up. He's well aware of that. -Kathryn
To be honest, money would make him feel less overwhelmed. It's not a very creative or interesting solution. Of course this could be accomplished by eliminating some of the species from his family, for example, the two 6 foot alligators or the Savannah tortoises that devour $100's worth if vegetables per week. Gary would rather starve himself than euthanize one of his animals (I can't blame him, they're all intoxicating). Gary has rather unusual permits for these animals that allow him to keep them alive and under his care legally. If certain species did not have such a status Gary would be required by law to send them back to their native environments. He would be required to do this within 6 months of obtaining the animal and funding must come from his own pocket (it is a lot of paperwork and extremely expensive as you can imagine). As I may have mentioned before, most of the animals have come to him born and raised in captivity, not to mention in poor health. If he did have the money to release them into their native environments- to be "free"- they would not survive. His other option according to BC legislation: Euthanasia. Death does not qualify as an option under Gary's definition of "solution".
He also needs man-power. Volunteers, animal-lovers, receptionists, Veterinarians, Animal behavioralists.. all of them willing to work for free or minimal compensation. At least until his "state of the art ecological centre" takes off. I guess this is money-related as well.
Gary doesn't give up, he tries very hard not to become discouraged. Overwhelmed, yes, but if he were to let himself become discouraged by the seemingly endless obstacles that are involved in his mission, the whole operation would go belly up. He's well aware of that. -Kathryn
Hi Kathryn,
Thank you for the information.
We can't help with giving away money or finding manpower but we have been successful previously with finding free help like vet care, building enclosures, cleaning, and humane placement but placement may not be an option considering the permits. We have been working with the HSUS and other humane organizations.
Does Gary continue to take in animals although he is overwhelmed? Does he admit to needing help?
Sincerely,
(Still clueless as to who I am speaking to, I began to understand this was no vfs student)*
Gary admits needing help. The very thought of free vet care for those animals makes me overjoyed, ______. With his decades of experience working closely with exotic animals, I know Gary hasn't mastered the business side of his operation. He is friendly enough but not especially terrific with "those" people. In a strange way this is one of his most charming characteristics. The impression I get: He has been uninstructed when it comes to approaching the right people for help.
He could always use cleaning/handling help, there are only a couple volunteers who are able to be there at a given time. Mainly they are there to help Gary bring a selection of animals to schools and events; they put on hour-long shows to make money for feed and hydro. Most of the time Gary does not have a choice when it comes to taking in more animals. Some venomous snakes for example have simply shown up at the door in bags marked "Danger" etc. - Kathryn
He could always use cleaning/handling help, there are only a couple volunteers who are able to be there at a given time. Mainly they are there to help Gary bring a selection of animals to schools and events; they put on hour-long shows to make money for feed and hydro. Most of the time Gary does not have a choice when it comes to taking in more animals. Some venomous snakes for example have simply shown up at the door in bags marked "Danger" etc. - Kathryn
Hi Kathryn,
First, let me say Gary's situation sounds very compelling and we are very actively searching for a Canadian story.
Second, the first season hasn't aired yet in Canada and just finished in the US but you can find the link here,
Let me confront the title as most people's first reaction is disinclined. Our definition of animal hoarder is anyone who has more animals than they can properly care for and that in many cases we've been able to get the animals the care they need. You'll see in the clips is the common thread in the people we feature is that they care deeply for their animals.
We don't release last names or the location and we don't force anyone to do anything they do not want to do. We have no legal authority. What we can offer is free resources like therapy, vet care, possibly building things to enable Gary to not feel so overwhelmed and work more effortlessly towards his goal of opening a centre.
Do you feel Gary would be open to speaking with me?
Sincerely,
Now I was excited but hesitant. Possibilities for Gary and the animals are obvious, but so are misinterpretations or misportrayals (made that word up). Conflicted: The episodes make these people out to be delusional. This is not the case with Gary. Though he has a different approach to behaving within certain limits that define the range of normal functioning , he is not delusional. I had to respond with these concerns. If Gary is crazy then I am crazy, I resinate with that man and his view of the natural world more than anyone. I let ____ know that Gary does not have any disorder. He has diabetes and a noble amount of compassion for other species and the environment- this in no way reflects insanity or need for therapy. In fact people could learn from him and have. He takes in animals because he doesn't see a choice. Communities take advantage of people like Gary because so few of them exist. Gary doesn't view animals as ornamental or disposable. He regards them as family and friends, he gives each one the respect all species deserve and for having this perspective, they have become his burden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)