Week Eleven: Which Way Forward?

1. If you had access to all resources how would you deal with “the global crisis in diet”?

This is actually a big problem when considered, especially on a global scale. I feel overwhelmed by it. Thinking of just the United States the problem's tendrils reach into so many areas that are broken. To get off the junk food people need more time, less work. It would be nice if both parents in a family didn’t have to work, or if we lived in extended families. Then we would have more time to cook, and to shop at farmer’s markets, and to grow some of our own food. Those quality of life improvements would certainly help. Rearranging our values would be good, too. Instead of watching TV while the dinner is in the microwave, we could be cooking (if we weren’t so tired and knew how).

Other ideas that might help would be:
*Mandating nutritional information on menus at all restaurants
*Changing the feeding practices of domestic animals to include grasses and leaves instead of corn and manufactured feed -- this would lead to a greater concentration of Omega 3 fats in our meat; the price of meat would probably rise and therefore people will begin to eat less of it again.
*Better nutrition education that is not funded by special interest groups
* Advertising restrictions--not allowing advertisements on TV for foods that have over a certain percentage of fat and/or sugar (this was done with cigarettes, which are not as big of a killer as obesity is!)
* Improve foods in schools-- no fast foods sold, only whole foods, fresh fruits and veggies / have school garden programs, like they do in Berkeley
* Improved food labeling
* Taxes on junk foods that will be funneled into the health care system

As far as the problem of the global diet crisis, honestly I can’t even begin to understand the problems, let alone suggest mandates to fix them.

2. Would you expect “carbon offsets” to work effectively?

I think there is some possible good that could result from carbon offsets, primarily that money is going to fund renewable energy development and/or resources. However, it also strikes me as a way to continue leading the same old life, with a little less guilt -- kind of like sinning and then going to confession; the sin has still been committed. Carbon offsets might prove most effective in simply making people aware of how much carbon is being emitted due to their direct activities, but it is not going to be an effective long term solution... the carbon is still being released into the air, even if we feel better about it!





3. Do you agree that “laughter really is the best medicine”?

“Best” medicine, I don’t know. But I think it is good medicine. The tricky part is that when I’m already feeling pretty good -- emotionally, mentally, physically -- it is much easier to laugh than when I’m feeling lousy. So it’s kind of like a chicken and egg question. If you are already feeling healthy, then you will laugh more, so you will be healthier. If you’re feeling lousy, you will probably not laugh as easily, and therefore won’t reap the benefits. The question, as always, is how to make that shift? Things that are funny often come as a surprise, and it can be nearly impossible to make yourself laugh on command.

Week Ten: Restoring the American Bison to its Rightful Range

1. How would you prioritize the reintroduction of the American Bison?

This is a complicated question. Back to nature always sounds really good to me, but times have changed; the planet has changed. I wasn't sure how to approach this question at all. I read through the articles in our packet and found that I had a lingering question: beyond symbolism and majesty, what role did the bison have in the ecosystem? Rather than spend lots of time googling to find this answer, I did something old fashioned -- I called someone, specifically my father-in-law Gene, who is Wyoming born and bred.

At left, A buffalo just outside of Yellowstone National Park, in Teton County, taken in 2004.


Gene has been a hunting guide for decades in the areas bordering Yellowstone Park and knows those woods well. He also has been a cattle rancher, and so has a particular bias. I have been an animal lover and was a vegetarian and / or vegan for over twenty years. I've been in that wilderness with him, riding horses and on pack trips. I'm kind of quiet and he's quite a talker. When I met him my head and heart were full of ideas that I'd read about, but he has actually lived it -- lived off the land directly for his whole life. It's interesting to hear his viewpoint and I often think that if the cattle ranchers and hunters sat down with the park rangers and conservationists, much progress could be made toward re-establishing a healthy ecosystem.

Me and Gene.

I asked Gene what he knew about the bison around Yellowstone. Here's what he said, more or less (after my conversation with him, I fact-checked some of what he said on the Internet and have placed my fact-check comments next to his comments):

That there are about 6,000 bison in Yellowstone and the surrounding Teton County, and that Ted Turner has a bunch on his ranches in the area. (Both are true. Ted Turner, in fact, has about 50,000 head of Bison -- the largest private herd in the world.)

Bison don't respect fences and compete with the ranchers. If it's a dry year the bison won't just stand there and starve, they will knock fences down and keep going until they find some green grass to eat.

There is a brucellosis problem which is kind of a crock of shit. Cows can become carriers of the disease, but can still remain healthy and produce calves. However, if you sell these calves and they are found to be carrying brucellosis you can no longer sell the cattle as "producing cattle" but only for meat. The disease doesn't really hurt the cattle, and cannot be transmitted to humans, so it is not of real concern. Brucellosis is a problem for the rancher because it reduces the value of his cattle (since you aren't allowed to produce more cattle from an infected animal) and therefore creates more animosity toward the bison. (Actually, humans can get brucellosis, but it is not from eating infected meat; it is from drinking infected goat's milk, primarily; also, the disease does impact the cattle -- it causes them to have more spontaneous abortions).

If the bison population gets too large for the Yellowstone area, they will go into Idaho. Idaho doesn't have a lot of fences like Wyoming because they are doing more farming in Idaho versus cattle ranching. The buffalo will then trample the farmers fields in Idaho, and then the farmers will start shooting the bison.

The success in breeding programs and raising them as ranch animals has proven that the herd won't go extinct, so we shouldn't worry about having to increase their numbers so much. What do we need more buffalo for, anyway?

Then I asked him well, what purpose do you think they served when there were millions of buffalo? He told me:

After the buffalo were gone the grass was starting to diminish and no one could figure out why because buffalo eat grass, and now the buffalo were gone, so you'd think the grass would be more plentiful. But there were no animals tromping the grass seed into the ground, so the grass was all dying. The buffalo migrations helped to scatter the seed and they mashed the seed into the ground. Then the Great Plains began to turn into a dustbowl because no other animal was serving this function. The elk were also hunted out of the low country. People in the late 1800s and early 1900s would hunt them for their ivory teeth and just leave their bodies there. If you have nothing to do all day but hunt, you can kill quite a few elk in a day. So the elk got smart and moved to the high country, where they could see you coming. But all the elk left the low country too. Now the Great Plains have wild game (antelope), are being farmed, or have cattle on them. The cattle serve the function that the buffalo once served, of spreading the grass seed and mashing it into the earth. And the Great Plains have shrunk. You don't need the buffalo anymore. The human population is too big; there are too many people and there is not enough land. Look at a population map. There's no room for buffalo out there.

At left, a Wyoming calf, also taken in 2004.

So that made a lot of sense to me, actually. I'm not saying forget the buffalo, or they're not necessary, but the problem is a lot more complicated than just trying to control some cattle ranchers. Who eats that meat, anyway? Most of us do, that's who. And if you're eating meat, where do you expect it to come from? Gene always points out that environmentalists are always wanting to re-introduce wild species into his backyard, but never into their own. That they think of places like Wyoming and Montana as just a vast wilderness. He always says, "Why don't they release wolves and grizzlies into Golden Gate Park?"

Just as the ecosystem of our country is interconnected so are our habits. If we want to eat meat, it has to be raised somewhere. If it's being raised somewhere, that's taking up traditional habitat that wild animals used to use. And the cattle ranchers are expected to just deal with the buffalo, the wolves, etc. We need to realize how we are all impacting this planet, and come up with a plan together that makes the most sense for the health of us all. We need to sit down and listen to each other, and respect the wisdom and knowledge of one another.

By the way, I looked up his story about the bison's role in the ecosystem. According to the US Fish and Wildlife:

"Bison were historically an integral component of the North American prairie ecosystem. Migrating bison provided essential functions, such as grazing and other disturbances that, together with fire, drove key ecological processes on the prairie. The decimation of the historic bison herds across the continent in the late 19th century removed this component from the prairie ecosystem. As the Service works to restore and conserve prairie habitats throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System, the agency has identified wild bison as a species that can and will play a vital role in this effort."

Another interesting fact about the Yellowstone bison: In the United States, only one wild bison population has continuously occupied their native range since prehistoric time: the Yellowstone bison.

2. How would you assess the "New pill promises to reduce breast cancer risk"?

Well, that's kind of an empty promise and quite misleading. The article doesn't identify exactly what this new pill is except to say that it is a "new group of compounds that include a drug known as mifepristone." Mifepristone is basically RU-486, the abortion pill. I have no ethical problem with the abortion pill, and realize that the dosage of RU-486 is much higher than what they will put into this new contraceptive cocktail, but what are the side effects, and what is this motivation to receive such glowing PR as to promise erradicating breast cancer? To date, mifepristone has not been approved for any additional uses other than to induce abortion (and that article was written in 2006). The article also doesn't mention that "No long-term studies to evaluate the carcenogenic potential of mifepristone have been performed" nor does it mention that the drug is a steroid.

I'm guessing that the drug companies were pushing this "anti-breast cancer" angle because anti-abortion people were protesting the drug due to its use in chemical abortions.

Week Nine: Ecosystems and Deep Ecology

1. What do you think about the "eight-point Deep Ecology Platform"?

I agree with it.

There are so many ways to say the same thing, however. What is the point of the message? To make change, presumably. And I think the best way to get the message across is to grab someone's heart. The Deep Ecology Platform principles makes me prickle a little. It's the tone and the bossiness of the thing. As I said, though, I agree with all the points, but the eight points make me feel glum, they are not inspiring, they speak mostly to that which has been done wrong instead of that which can be done right. My spirit does not ring true with them, though my mind does.

Here are some other words I found to express similar beliefs, which catch me in the spirit and heart:

From the Tao te Ching:

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

Wendell Berry: The first thing we must begin to teach our children (and learn ourselves) is that we cannot spend and consume endlessly. We have got to learn to save and conserve. We do need a "new economy", but one that is founded on thrift and care, on saving and conserving, not on excess and waste. An economy based on waste is inherently and hopelessly violent, and war is its inevitable by-product. We need a peaceable economy.

Chief Seattle: What I do to you, I do to myself. What you give me, you give to the Universe. What the Universe gives, she gives to us. What I feel, you feel. What you become, I become. You are not alone, nor am I. You are forever with me and I with you. We are brothers and sisters on the Web of Life.

Manifest Mitakuye-Oyasin: Relate, connect to your sisters and brothers. See the similarities, not the differences. Recognize that water is ice, as well as vapor. Hear the one heartbeat and embody the awe of life. (mi-TAHK-wee-a-say) means we are all related - Ojibway language

Native American Elder:

Honor the sacred.
Honor the Earth, our Mother.
Honor the Elders.
Honor all with whom we
share the Earth:-
Four-leggeds, two-leggeds,
winged ones,
Swimmers, crawlers,
plant and rock people.
Walk in balance and beauty.

Ancient Indian Proverb:

Treat the earth well.
It was not given to you by your parents,
it was loaned to you by your children.
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors,
we borrow it from our Children.

2. Can you explain why "Ecosystems are both strong and fragile"?

An ecosystem can withstand some abuse, some lean times, without collapsing. It can repair itself like when flesh recovers from a deep cut. After all that has been done to the earth and its many ecosystems, over six billion humans can still survive. But ecosystems also bear scars from abuse and since all parts are interconnected what is done to one part echoes out and impacts the others. There are 13,000 year old hunting camps in the Arctic that STILL retain the mark of change from the piles of whale bones that were lain on the shoreline by humans. The piles of whale bone changed the chemical make up of earth and water and this activity can still be detected. If something so low impact as piling up whale bones on a shoreline can leave its mark for 13,000 years, imagine what kind of mark we are leaving today, and for how long the scar will retain the memory of what we have done. Maybe instead of fragile, I would say "Ecosystems are both strong and sensitive." They don't necessarily break, but they are easily impacted.

3. How would you assess the "end goals" of Social Ecology?

I'm not sure I understand the question correctly, but if you mean:

"challenging those aspects of the political and economic order that prevent the fulfillment of basic human needs" and

"offering theories that explain the social causes of environmental problems and alternative ways to resolve them" and

"supporting social movements for removing the causes of environmental deterioration and raising the quality of life for people of every race, class, and sex"

... I say here here and also good luck.

Who wouldn't want to live more peacefully and in harmony? How do we solve all the problems that exist and get us all to that point? Certainly it is too much to move six billion people in the same direction without their consent. It can be hard to move even one small unwilling child out the door of the supermarket when he wants to consume sugar and sparkly prizes. But if we all want to walk via our own will together in the same direction, then it will be done! Hopefully we can wake up to the same dream one day.

Week Eight: Cell Biology: HIV and AIDS

1. How do you feel about western approaches to HIV/AIDS?

I feel like western researchers and doctors are doing the best they can to understand and treat the disease. It's a complicated and cunning deadly virus. Western scientists are investigating the virus's behavior and seem to have a good understanding of how it interacts with the immune system. The immune system is probably the worst system in the body to be under attack -- the very system that should be working to defend the body from malfunction is being corrupted. Even the way I am writing this is very western -- the natural metaphor I use is a mechanical one. I think in the west we think about "killing" and "attacking" the invader. It's a very war-oriented approach to health. And this is what I am wondering--if the whole approach needs to be re-thought and turned upside down. I'm not suggesting that I know how to do this, but sometimes a completely novel way of looking at something can bring solutions to the surface. Some ideas I have:

--concentrate more on strengthening the immune system instead of attacking the virus. The attack mentality doesn't seem to be working very well. Give the body immune strengthening medicines instead of harsh drugs. Research ways to generate a super immune system that can withstand and recognize the virus so that the immune cells are not tricked into being overtaken by the virus. I guess this is the concept of the vaccine. And I understand that a vaccine for AIDS is tricky because there are so many different strains... but maybe there is another way to really bolster the immune system and keep it functioning well?

--try to think like the virus as if the virus had a will and an intent. As if the virus had consciousness. What is its goal? What is its intention? What does it want? Why does it mutate so easily? If the mutations could be controlled perhaps a vaccine would work.

--I'm not advocating for chimp research, but why don't chimps develop symptoms when they have the virus? What is different about how their immune system functions? I don't imagine their immune systems can be all that different.

--we live with a lot of different viruses, like CMV, that don't typically kill us. Is there a way that we could get to a point where the HIV virus is not such a deadly thing to live with?

--is there a way to get HIV to mutate itself into oblivion?

2. Can TCM strengthen our immune systems?

Yes I believe it can. At least all signs point to the fact that TCM does indeed strengthen the immune system. One possible reason for this is that it can lower stress and anxiety; stress and anxiety alone can cripple the immune system because the immune system is connected to the nervous system. Some people believe that the acupuncture needle actually re-activates the immune system by acting as a foreign invader.

3. What do you think of "the deal that saved the whale"?

I think it's complicated. The solution (encouraging ecotourism) is better, I'm almost certain, than outright development. However, I've been working on a project for several years that involves World Heritage sites including the one mentioned in the article (the site is El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve). Several artists were sent on two visits to a natural World Heritage site over the course of a few years. Many of them reported that the act of a place being named a World Heritage site (a designation given to help protect the site) often turns it into a tourist destination. Once that happens -- even if it is ecotourism -- the impact to the site can be significant. This happened at the Galapagos Islands, which just this year went on to the "World Heritage sites in danger" list -- largely from the impact of tourists.

Here is a link, with lots of pretty pictures, to the project I have been working on: www.artistsrespond.org. And a link to the artist's project who worked at the grey whale sanctuary mentioned in the article: http://www.artistsrespond.org/artists/ovalle/

The Mitubishi Saltworks at El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve in Mexico: