He's been compared to Hitler. He's been compared to Berlusconi of Italy. There are many other comparisons, but they all share one thing in common: They all link to other, famed, failed political endeavors. He's loud, obnoxious, and virulent. He claims he will tone down his message once he's President, but does anyone actually believe that? Perhaps. If they do, they are living in a fantasy realm.
Don't get me wrong, fantasy is great. It makes for a great story. Unfortunately, this is reality, and this is no fantasy playground. Our choices have consequences, and they have consequences every election cycle. Overall, I've become increasingly dismayed by the collective voting prowess of Americans. Or, perhaps, I am even more disillusioned by the people who run for President. However, many who sound perfectly reasonable, end up left in the dust, while the loudest person gets elected. It's like a reality TV show, except it's being broadcast for the whole world to see. Since America plays a disproportionate role in global politics, however, our choices disproportionately affect other countries, not just our own.
My point isn't to get into the "should we play the world's friendly helper with too many guns," but rather to simply point out how very bad voting for Trump will be.
He wants to make America "Great Again?" How? Many of his products are produced in Mexico and China. He has imported workers from Mexico for cheap labor.
He's a nice guy? He's made homophobic and racial slurs since the beginning. At several recent rallies, violence has been incited. He even offered to pay the legal fees of a person who punched a protestor at a Trump rally. The offender claimed the person was not acting "like an American." What does that even mean? America is notorious for supporting all sides of a debate, all views and peoples. (Except for native Americans, blacks, Japanese at one point, Irish, etc. But, we're past all that. Right?)
How did Trump get this far? There are a variety of factors. Disgruntled white workers who feel their world is changing for the worse are one reason. They're angry, and they feel Trump will fix the system. How can he fix something when he is, himself, part of the problem? He's rich, chauvinistic, bigoted, racist... He's everything a country all about opportunity and progress should stand against.
And we will.
The world is watching to see if America will elect a narcissistic movie star, a person so rich he has no grasp on reality, a person so enamored with himself that every new statement must be more egregious than the last in an effort to keep himself in the limelight. Perhaps, this is actually his goal. If his only goal is attention, which is highly plausible, he's doing an outstanding job. Even by writing this, I direct more attention to him, which is what he wants.
I'm encouraging everyone to avoid voting for Trump. If you must vote Republican, vote for someone aside from him. Or just vote Democrat.
Thank you.
Monday, March 14, 2016
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Thoughts on the Current Election
It's been said this will be a historic election, one way or another. Perhaps we will have a Jewish socialist in the oval office, or a bombastic billionaire. We also have a fundamentalist and a pragmatic in the front-running (Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton, respectively). The fundamentalist may just be a bad idea, and the pragmatic happens to be female, which is also historic. However, I believe we must take a history lesson and realize that we should not vote for someone because they are a minority. Many voted for Barrack Obama simply because he was black. That was historic, surely, but was it the right decision?
And now, as Missouri Primaries come up, and then the main election later in November, we have a very large decision to make, and it's a very important one. If you are considering not voting, please reconsider. Your vote actually does matter. For more details on that front, go to the first citation, which has various graphs detailing voter turnout. 1 For the most part, it reveals that old white people are most likely to vote. Young people are inherently less likely to vote, and also more likely to be at ideological odds with their older counterparts. This discrepancy helps explain why a socialist is even in the front running at all.
But this election is a very confusing matter. I have very specific political priorities and I've distilled them over a period of years. This probably means I am not likely to be satisfied by any candidate except myself, but I am still concerned by which candidate will actually serve America the best. Here are my thoughts and research on the four current front runners:
Bernie Sanders: An admitted democratic socialist. Normally, you would expect to find this person simmering in an ideological pot in Europe. Instead, he is alive and well (albeit old) in America. He wants to attack the rich and powerful, tax them, and hold them responsible for destroying the economy. These are fine goals, but to actually accomplish them? Further, he has several "golden unicorns" in the forest; that is, he wants free healthcare, education, and new infrastructure. These are incredibly expensive goals and would not necessarily boost our economy. One observes that in order to redistribute money, one must have it first in abundance, and judging by the current state of our economy, this may not work very well.
I am biased towards environmentalism, and while Bernie would work on these issues, he may vandalize the American economy in the process. I believe we can have both.
Donald Trump: Before we move on any further, here's a list of all Trump's insults:
The 196 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted On Twitter: A Complete List
If this doesn't cause you concern, I do not know what will. He has repeatedly gone after women, elderly, disabled, Mexicans, Muslims, and many others, to the extent that the only group not ostracized is white male religious fanatics. Regardless, many are still following him, and Trump's followers are actually very similar to Sander's followers in that both groups are angry. They are simply placing their anger in different areas. Sander's followers are angry, white, young liberals, and half have college degrees. Trump's followers are angry, white, conservative, and only about 10% have college degrees.
Ted Cruz: As a progressive, and a moderate one at that, I feel obligated to flee from Cruz regardless of his stances. He claims to want to bring down the DC structure, possibly into something small enough he can throw down the bathtub drain, but for the most part he has served the same machine that he espouses to attack. Meanwhile, Glenn Beck implied God killed the late Justice Scalia so Cruz could be President. 2 Also, Ted Cruz "Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems." 3 Overall, I simply do not believe Cruz would actually make America a better place.
Hillary Clinton: During the debates I've gained some respect for her calm, in-control mannerism, but she uses many "politician" answers and is quite obviously a career politician. A quick look at her campaign contributions from 1999 onward reveals that she has received large amounts of money from banks and investment firms, which she claims she would take on. However, her environmental policy, while not particularly comprehensive, would be much better than anyone from the Republican arena, where every candidate is either associated with Fox News and/or wants to destroy the environment.
In summary, we are in trouble. We have an entire class of Americans who, angry at the system, are going for either Trump or Sanders, both of whom would rock the boat; Ted Cruz, essentially a non-entity; and Clinton, who may or may not actually make anything better in America. But here's my opinion: Sanders is authentic. He has good ideas, and wants to actually make a difference, but I find his vehemence against entrepreneurship and the Constitution worrisome. Trump wants to make America Great Again, but it might involve WWIII. Clinton, as best I can tell, would make a more well-rounded presidential nominee. However, she is the bought-and-paid-for option.
Again, I believe we are in trouble with any of these options. The Republican and Democratic party have systematically destroyed the economy and turned a blind eye to environmental destruction, while companies have polluted the environment, raked in massive amounts of money, and crippled the middle class.
After a certain period, large companies function exactly like large government; that is, they take from the country and do not give back.
1. http://mic.com/articles/125344/if-anyone-ever-tells-you-your-vote-doesn-t-matter-show-them-this#.j9H1gKyRW
2. http://fox8.com/2016/02/18/glenn-beck-god-took-scalia-to-give-america-ted-cruz-as-president/
3. http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Cruz.htm#Environment
And now, as Missouri Primaries come up, and then the main election later in November, we have a very large decision to make, and it's a very important one. If you are considering not voting, please reconsider. Your vote actually does matter. For more details on that front, go to the first citation, which has various graphs detailing voter turnout. 1 For the most part, it reveals that old white people are most likely to vote. Young people are inherently less likely to vote, and also more likely to be at ideological odds with their older counterparts. This discrepancy helps explain why a socialist is even in the front running at all.
But this election is a very confusing matter. I have very specific political priorities and I've distilled them over a period of years. This probably means I am not likely to be satisfied by any candidate except myself, but I am still concerned by which candidate will actually serve America the best. Here are my thoughts and research on the four current front runners:
Bernie Sanders: An admitted democratic socialist. Normally, you would expect to find this person simmering in an ideological pot in Europe. Instead, he is alive and well (albeit old) in America. He wants to attack the rich and powerful, tax them, and hold them responsible for destroying the economy. These are fine goals, but to actually accomplish them? Further, he has several "golden unicorns" in the forest; that is, he wants free healthcare, education, and new infrastructure. These are incredibly expensive goals and would not necessarily boost our economy. One observes that in order to redistribute money, one must have it first in abundance, and judging by the current state of our economy, this may not work very well.
I am biased towards environmentalism, and while Bernie would work on these issues, he may vandalize the American economy in the process. I believe we can have both.
Donald Trump: Before we move on any further, here's a list of all Trump's insults:
The 196 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted On Twitter: A Complete List
If this doesn't cause you concern, I do not know what will. He has repeatedly gone after women, elderly, disabled, Mexicans, Muslims, and many others, to the extent that the only group not ostracized is white male religious fanatics. Regardless, many are still following him, and Trump's followers are actually very similar to Sander's followers in that both groups are angry. They are simply placing their anger in different areas. Sander's followers are angry, white, young liberals, and half have college degrees. Trump's followers are angry, white, conservative, and only about 10% have college degrees.
Ted Cruz: As a progressive, and a moderate one at that, I feel obligated to flee from Cruz regardless of his stances. He claims to want to bring down the DC structure, possibly into something small enough he can throw down the bathtub drain, but for the most part he has served the same machine that he espouses to attack. Meanwhile, Glenn Beck implied God killed the late Justice Scalia so Cruz could be President. 2 Also, Ted Cruz "Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems." 3 Overall, I simply do not believe Cruz would actually make America a better place.
Hillary Clinton: During the debates I've gained some respect for her calm, in-control mannerism, but she uses many "politician" answers and is quite obviously a career politician. A quick look at her campaign contributions from 1999 onward reveals that she has received large amounts of money from banks and investment firms, which she claims she would take on. However, her environmental policy, while not particularly comprehensive, would be much better than anyone from the Republican arena, where every candidate is either associated with Fox News and/or wants to destroy the environment.
In summary, we are in trouble. We have an entire class of Americans who, angry at the system, are going for either Trump or Sanders, both of whom would rock the boat; Ted Cruz, essentially a non-entity; and Clinton, who may or may not actually make anything better in America. But here's my opinion: Sanders is authentic. He has good ideas, and wants to actually make a difference, but I find his vehemence against entrepreneurship and the Constitution worrisome. Trump wants to make America Great Again, but it might involve WWIII. Clinton, as best I can tell, would make a more well-rounded presidential nominee. However, she is the bought-and-paid-for option.
Again, I believe we are in trouble with any of these options. The Republican and Democratic party have systematically destroyed the economy and turned a blind eye to environmental destruction, while companies have polluted the environment, raked in massive amounts of money, and crippled the middle class.
After a certain period, large companies function exactly like large government; that is, they take from the country and do not give back.
1. http://mic.com/articles/125344/if-anyone-ever-tells-you-your-vote-doesn-t-matter-show-them-this#.j9H1gKyRW
2. http://fox8.com/2016/02/18/glenn-beck-god-took-scalia-to-give-america-ted-cruz-as-president/
3. http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Cruz.htm#Environment
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Agent Barnes
Mini story for your reading pleasure, by Yours Truly.
There was a serene sky outside the sleek, stainless-clad windows, which beheld a view of a poor neighborhood with a river winding through it. Elevated several stories from the ground, the office itself was posh. Several steel file cabinets set in one corner, adorned with silver edging. The floor was a cool, off-white marble tile with black and white veins running through. A skinny, pale man in a light gray suit sat in a plush, white leather chair, seemingly preoccupied with his silver computer monitor and keyboard, and not the burlesque, well-built man in the chair across the modern style desk. He wore a darker suit, sitting rigidly in his chair and running his eyes across the room constantly, as if scanning for hazards.
"Let's run over the mission again, Agent Blake," said the pale man. "Your job is to plant the nuke in the southern Syrian town, and avoid getting caught before then. You'll have all the resources and men you need."
"I don't like this, Agent Barnes. Innocent people are going to die, just to scathe ISIL," said Blake worriedly.
"I don't care if you have a problem with it. We both know why you're actually here." He turned the sleek computer monitor so Blake could see his own file. There was red lettering to one side. Blake's expression didn't change, but his face paled slightly under his short beard as he eyed Barnes.
"If you don't, someone else will. But you're the best man for the job. So, if you don't..." Barnes raised his eyebrow and planted his leather dress shoes on the desk, while turning the monitor back toward himself.
Blake hesitated further, jaw working with no sound emerging. His hands clenched his suit, wrinkling the corner. Perspiration beaded around his forehead. Finally,
"I'll do it."
Agent Barnes smiled, his skinny finger lightly tapping "delete" on the keyboard.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Why Republicans are More Likely to Reject Climate Science
So, first off I get ready to insult a few people! However, if you're actually reading this, it means either you've already been insulted by the headline, or you're likely a liberal and reading this post will just reaffirm your beliefs. (Usually I like to keep beliefs out of climate science, but since beliefs are mostly what prevents the public from accepting climate science, we will be talking about beliefs. It's rather like Bones' dislike of physchology on the popular TV show Bones.)
So, why are Republicans more likely to think climate science is quackery and several thousand respected scientists have been paid off by some socialistic scheme to control the entire planet? I believe that issue is extremely complicated, and involves many variables, such as peer pressure and ideology identification, to name a few. These terms refer to the fact that people are inclined to believe in a set standard of beliefs and morals that match with the people and ideologies that they associate with. In other words, if you're a conservative listening to Rush Limbaugh, every time he jokes that hybrid drivers are "morally superior financially illiterate hippies," or some such, it reaffirms the ideology set that you've associated with, whether or not you actually think that hybrid drivers fall into that category.
So, doesn't everyone have certain disagreements with the people that they hang out with? Maybe - but only about 53% of the public believe that scientists agree on climate change. The reality is that 97% of climatologists agree that the data confirms that climate change is a reality. Notice that I did not saw they "believe" it is happening. This is not a matter of beliefs; believing climate change is not an issue is essentially like believing the earth is flat; it really doesn't matter what you believe, because it's there. However, due to propaganda and such, likely on part of the oil industry, the public and politicians have turned the issue into a political issue.
This is understandable, in a way. Since it will involve policy changes and decisions, it automatically becomes a political issue as soon as scientists suggest that we attempt to make changes. Thus, people then hear from the politicians - who freely admit that they are not scientists, which somehow excuses them from not understanding basic scientific principles. Senator Inhofe throwing a snowball in the Senate is a prime example of scientific ignorance and a poor understanding of the issues. A blizzard, even across the whole US, does not negate climate change, because not only must we think globally, we must think of the whole earth - because data has now shown that the oceans are likely to be responsible for absorbing the bulk of the heat from climate change. [1]
The recent temperature slowdown is proof of at least two things. 1. It shows that scientists are not fudging data, which is a rather absurd belief to begin with, since they would likely just continue to increase their numbers, and 2. There are still a lot of things we don't understand. This is something scientists are willing to admit - unlike many politicians and citizens.
This is also understandable. People do not like being told they are wrong. It rubs them the wrong way, damages their ego, and causes them to second guess themselves. We shouldn't be going after the general public. We need to be going after the main culprits - politicians with monetary agendas and oil and other anti-environmental businesses. These businesses resist at every opportunity, and are deeply ingrained in how the world works right now. However, and this is speculation, I suspect that it would not be entirely too difficult for these companies to jump into wind, solar, nuclear, and other cleaner sources of energy. We need to let people, businesses, and politicians know that the status quo is inherently dangerous, and that it is going to severely damage the planet if we don't make meaningful change, and soon.
We can do this in a variety of ways. The new "slacktivism" may even be able to help - this entails sharing environmental posts to your friends, signing petitions online, and other things that pop up. Like your local environmentally conscious groups on Facebook so they show up in your feeds. If you feel inspired, go out and get active.
I realize I've strayed quite severely from the original topic, so I apologize for that. Ultimately, party differences don't paint a very good line in the general public - but Congress has been highly polarized on a variety of issues for quite some time, and it is not surprising that climate change has similarly been polarized. Let's try to wade across party differences and make some meaningful change for each other, the country, and the world.
So, why are Republicans more likely to think climate science is quackery and several thousand respected scientists have been paid off by some socialistic scheme to control the entire planet? I believe that issue is extremely complicated, and involves many variables, such as peer pressure and ideology identification, to name a few. These terms refer to the fact that people are inclined to believe in a set standard of beliefs and morals that match with the people and ideologies that they associate with. In other words, if you're a conservative listening to Rush Limbaugh, every time he jokes that hybrid drivers are "morally superior financially illiterate hippies," or some such, it reaffirms the ideology set that you've associated with, whether or not you actually think that hybrid drivers fall into that category.
So, doesn't everyone have certain disagreements with the people that they hang out with? Maybe - but only about 53% of the public believe that scientists agree on climate change. The reality is that 97% of climatologists agree that the data confirms that climate change is a reality. Notice that I did not saw they "believe" it is happening. This is not a matter of beliefs; believing climate change is not an issue is essentially like believing the earth is flat; it really doesn't matter what you believe, because it's there. However, due to propaganda and such, likely on part of the oil industry, the public and politicians have turned the issue into a political issue.
This is understandable, in a way. Since it will involve policy changes and decisions, it automatically becomes a political issue as soon as scientists suggest that we attempt to make changes. Thus, people then hear from the politicians - who freely admit that they are not scientists, which somehow excuses them from not understanding basic scientific principles. Senator Inhofe throwing a snowball in the Senate is a prime example of scientific ignorance and a poor understanding of the issues. A blizzard, even across the whole US, does not negate climate change, because not only must we think globally, we must think of the whole earth - because data has now shown that the oceans are likely to be responsible for absorbing the bulk of the heat from climate change. [1]
The recent temperature slowdown is proof of at least two things. 1. It shows that scientists are not fudging data, which is a rather absurd belief to begin with, since they would likely just continue to increase their numbers, and 2. There are still a lot of things we don't understand. This is something scientists are willing to admit - unlike many politicians and citizens.
This is also understandable. People do not like being told they are wrong. It rubs them the wrong way, damages their ego, and causes them to second guess themselves. We shouldn't be going after the general public. We need to be going after the main culprits - politicians with monetary agendas and oil and other anti-environmental businesses. These businesses resist at every opportunity, and are deeply ingrained in how the world works right now. However, and this is speculation, I suspect that it would not be entirely too difficult for these companies to jump into wind, solar, nuclear, and other cleaner sources of energy. We need to let people, businesses, and politicians know that the status quo is inherently dangerous, and that it is going to severely damage the planet if we don't make meaningful change, and soon.
We can do this in a variety of ways. The new "slacktivism" may even be able to help - this entails sharing environmental posts to your friends, signing petitions online, and other things that pop up. Like your local environmentally conscious groups on Facebook so they show up in your feeds. If you feel inspired, go out and get active.
I realize I've strayed quite severely from the original topic, so I apologize for that. Ultimately, party differences don't paint a very good line in the general public - but Congress has been highly polarized on a variety of issues for quite some time, and it is not surprising that climate change has similarly been polarized. Let's try to wade across party differences and make some meaningful change for each other, the country, and the world.
Why Global Warming Can't Be True
It might seem impractical to say something like this, but it actually has good potential to be quite practical. For example, we will be able to focus almost exclusively on business as usual once we show why climate change can't be true. It's what we all really want; to know the reasons why it can't be right, and how we can continue living our lives exactly the way we were before. So, this article is meant to empower those individuals who were searching for that loophole. It's not really a way out. It's just affirmation of what we knew, deep down, was correct.
Tip #1: Realize the scientists are probably wrong.
But don't 97% of scientists agree it's a problem? Sure. But did you know we don't have reliable temperature records from before the thermometer was invented? How can scientists honestly tell us how historic climates were when Rome didn't even keep temperature records? We've only got about a century of very reliable records, never mind that the global average temp keeps going up! The climate fluctuates all the time anyways, which you well know if you ever tried to plan a camping trip.
Tip #2: It's their fault for building there in the first place.
Rising sea levels? Don't worry - Antartica gains ice every winter! Or, wait, does it gain ice in the summer, since the earth tilts away from the sun during summer? Or it is during winter, I can't seem to remember. Anyways, they built in the lowlands, it's their fault for getting flooded routinely! If Florida disappears, we'll just send the snowbirds to Canada for their summer bake.
Tip #3: The economy needs to keep expanding. Climate change would get in the way!
You're absolutely right, you know. If climate change continues on it's current course, there could be a massive amount of legislature in place preventing businesses from working the way they want to. There may not be an natural resources left after baking, but that was probably from all those chemtrails.
Tip #4: This would be incredibly inconvenient! You might have to change, even radically.
So don't! Realize that your opinions and views trump science from around the globe. Respected scientists from many fields are unworthy of your attention - you have responsibilities to the status quo. Eventually you'll make enough money to buy that gas guzzling V12 Jaguar, and then people will respect you. No one will respect you if you cut back on consumption. By the way, we happen to have an unlimited amount of resources for infinite expansion. We will never have to fight a war over resources to keep the economy growing. Just look at the stock market for proof. Always going up (and down and up and down again, but that's beside the point).
Tip #5: Realize there are some highly vocal people who agree with you!
Some of them even wear lab coats. I doubt the label inside has a Big Oil sponsor printed on it - that's only something Wind and Solar do, because they have all the money. Just look at the Upside Down Fortune 500 list for proof.
Tip #6: Realize Al Gore invented the internet.
We don't trust Al Gore! He's just a slimy politician, and we also don't like him, so everything he says must be false. Never mind all the scientists and universities and everything - they just invented reason and logic, which would be disastrous to this argument.
For further reading, check out this Big Think article on how to deny scientific consensus on just about any subject:
5 Easy Tips for Denying Scientific Consensus
Very helpful stuff there! For an in depth explanation of what will almost certainly NOT happen if we keep up with Business As usual, read:
The Next Genocide
That's all for now! I'll be selling Portable Buckets of Sand very soon, which are quite useful in the event you don't live next to a handy desert. Yet.
Tip #1: Realize the scientists are probably wrong.
But don't 97% of scientists agree it's a problem? Sure. But did you know we don't have reliable temperature records from before the thermometer was invented? How can scientists honestly tell us how historic climates were when Rome didn't even keep temperature records? We've only got about a century of very reliable records, never mind that the global average temp keeps going up! The climate fluctuates all the time anyways, which you well know if you ever tried to plan a camping trip.
Tip #2: It's their fault for building there in the first place.
Rising sea levels? Don't worry - Antartica gains ice every winter! Or, wait, does it gain ice in the summer, since the earth tilts away from the sun during summer? Or it is during winter, I can't seem to remember. Anyways, they built in the lowlands, it's their fault for getting flooded routinely! If Florida disappears, we'll just send the snowbirds to Canada for their summer bake.
Tip #3: The economy needs to keep expanding. Climate change would get in the way!
You're absolutely right, you know. If climate change continues on it's current course, there could be a massive amount of legislature in place preventing businesses from working the way they want to. There may not be an natural resources left after baking, but that was probably from all those chemtrails.
Tip #4: This would be incredibly inconvenient! You might have to change, even radically.
So don't! Realize that your opinions and views trump science from around the globe. Respected scientists from many fields are unworthy of your attention - you have responsibilities to the status quo. Eventually you'll make enough money to buy that gas guzzling V12 Jaguar, and then people will respect you. No one will respect you if you cut back on consumption. By the way, we happen to have an unlimited amount of resources for infinite expansion. We will never have to fight a war over resources to keep the economy growing. Just look at the stock market for proof. Always going up (and down and up and down again, but that's beside the point).
Tip #5: Realize there are some highly vocal people who agree with you!
Some of them even wear lab coats. I doubt the label inside has a Big Oil sponsor printed on it - that's only something Wind and Solar do, because they have all the money. Just look at the Upside Down Fortune 500 list for proof.
Tip #6: Realize Al Gore invented the internet.
We don't trust Al Gore! He's just a slimy politician, and we also don't like him, so everything he says must be false. Never mind all the scientists and universities and everything - they just invented reason and logic, which would be disastrous to this argument.
For further reading, check out this Big Think article on how to deny scientific consensus on just about any subject:
5 Easy Tips for Denying Scientific Consensus
Very helpful stuff there! For an in depth explanation of what will almost certainly NOT happen if we keep up with Business As usual, read:
The Next Genocide
That's all for now! I'll be selling Portable Buckets of Sand very soon, which are quite useful in the event you don't live next to a handy desert. Yet.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Cave Ecosystems - Fragility
Recently my speleology class was covering biology of caves, and so I thought making it into my next blog post would be a good idea. In search for topics to write about, this one seemed like a logical next step, since I'm in biology as my field of study, and this is my environmentalist blog. Further, it might help some people learn some better ways to care for caves. As usual, I always encourage trying to think with the conservation ethic - namely, even if no one has said it, it should be done in a protective manner. For example, is that dinner party in the mouth of that local cave really worth damaging the fragile cave ecosystem?
Obviously, some caves are quite sturdy and have no conservation requirements. Limited wildlife, no strange artifacts, maybe already thoroughly damaged by humans (although in that case, restoration might be in hand), or it's just an ugly rock hole. (Nothing warrants graffiti, however. I find the recent social media explosion where some person graffitied National Parks disgusting.) Other caves, however, have strange and bizarre animals and insect living within them, which are easily disrupted and damaged by humans activities. In France, there is a secret cave that contains hundreds of large, super-fragile spikes of minerals. A single touch could destroy one, and set off a chain reaction as well.
Closer to home, everyone knows not to touch the fragile stalactites and stalagmites, sometimes much to the consternation of cave geologists. The oils on our skin coat the surface of the mineral, and the water avoids the oil stain, and no longer leaves mineral deposits in the touched areas. Needless to say, a touched cone will eventually "die" if touched enough.
Types of animals: Troglobites (not to be confused with Star Trek's Tribbles), are animals that dwell in caves permanently. (The tribbles were space-faring grain munchers, in case you were wondering.) These are animals that have permanent adaptations for cave life, and they typically spend all of their time in the caves. These animals are typically rather bizarre, lacking in pigments as pigmentation does them no good in a no-light environment. Troglophiles are animals that may spend some of their life in the cave, and the rest out of the cave. Examples include cave crickets, small insects that use the caves for refuge, but spend other parts of the day outside.
Trogloxenes include everything else, and may or may not use the cave on a regular basis. Humans are examples of trogloxenes, and are particularly good at damaging the habitats of the other species that use caves for permanent habitats. It's really not that hard to disrupt caves, however. Other common ways of damaging caves, is to find one that has a nice big opening and party in it. This is apparently popular for younger people to do. Personally, I usually refrain from punching people like that. The caves can be damaged, and typically there is little that can repair the interior of a cave. Bats may be disturbed as well, and bats tend to congregate in large nunbers in small areas, which makes them particularly vulnerable. This is why we see the cave gates on some caves that are deemed fragile.
Some interesting cave beetles were recently studied by scientists, and they didn't have any eyes. (The beetles, not the scientists.) Oddly, however, they had the genes for eye-sight, suggesting that after long periods of cave life, the beetle may at one point have been able to see, but since natural selection had no need for eyes, they disappeared - but not entirely.
Obviously, some caves are quite sturdy and have no conservation requirements. Limited wildlife, no strange artifacts, maybe already thoroughly damaged by humans (although in that case, restoration might be in hand), or it's just an ugly rock hole. (Nothing warrants graffiti, however. I find the recent social media explosion where some person graffitied National Parks disgusting.) Other caves, however, have strange and bizarre animals and insect living within them, which are easily disrupted and damaged by humans activities. In France, there is a secret cave that contains hundreds of large, super-fragile spikes of minerals. A single touch could destroy one, and set off a chain reaction as well.
Closer to home, everyone knows not to touch the fragile stalactites and stalagmites, sometimes much to the consternation of cave geologists. The oils on our skin coat the surface of the mineral, and the water avoids the oil stain, and no longer leaves mineral deposits in the touched areas. Needless to say, a touched cone will eventually "die" if touched enough.
Types of animals: Troglobites (not to be confused with Star Trek's Tribbles), are animals that dwell in caves permanently. (The tribbles were space-faring grain munchers, in case you were wondering.) These are animals that have permanent adaptations for cave life, and they typically spend all of their time in the caves. These animals are typically rather bizarre, lacking in pigments as pigmentation does them no good in a no-light environment. Troglophiles are animals that may spend some of their life in the cave, and the rest out of the cave. Examples include cave crickets, small insects that use the caves for refuge, but spend other parts of the day outside.
Trogloxenes include everything else, and may or may not use the cave on a regular basis. Humans are examples of trogloxenes, and are particularly good at damaging the habitats of the other species that use caves for permanent habitats. It's really not that hard to disrupt caves, however. Other common ways of damaging caves, is to find one that has a nice big opening and party in it. This is apparently popular for younger people to do. Personally, I usually refrain from punching people like that. The caves can be damaged, and typically there is little that can repair the interior of a cave. Bats may be disturbed as well, and bats tend to congregate in large nunbers in small areas, which makes them particularly vulnerable. This is why we see the cave gates on some caves that are deemed fragile.
Some interesting cave beetles were recently studied by scientists, and they didn't have any eyes. (The beetles, not the scientists.) Oddly, however, they had the genes for eye-sight, suggesting that after long periods of cave life, the beetle may at one point have been able to see, but since natural selection had no need for eyes, they disappeared - but not entirely.
Moral of the story is, be nice to caves.
http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/faults.html - examples of cave graffiti at bottom.
http://www.batcon.org - lots of info about bats, bat conservation, and - hm - Ebola.
http://www.edwardsaquifer.net/faults.html - examples of cave graffiti at bottom.
http://www.batcon.org - lots of info about bats, bat conservation, and - hm - Ebola.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
American Football and Why Time is Already Dead
Here is a brief rambling on football, and the American concept of time; namely, the idea that we're constantly running out of it.
I should have written about China, just because of the fact that I'm experienced with Chinese cultures somewhat and also the diverse amount of products they send us, mostly cheap stuff like tins, nick knacks, and iPhones. The Chinese do not have near as much freedom as we do, and I regularly hear stories about how one family member or another flees China to come live here. They (the stories) usually end on a screechy note, lamenting the fact that America's freedoms are fast disappearing. The scary part of that may be, even though Chinese sometimes want to come live here, eventually it might not be that much more free. They are sort of a hybrid of a market based culture and a communist culture, and as far as I know they are the only working example of a rich communist country (as in healthy middle class). Still, the Chinese do not have as much say as we do. The Internet there is tightly policed, and forums and everything on the Chinese Internet is monitored and censored if not in line with what Big Brother wants. Well, that's not entirely true: The censors will usually let people rail against politicians, but any attempt to organize resistance in any way is immediately stifled and the people are subject to correction.[1]
Also I'd really like to join the Football-bashing bandwagon (where there is one): I've never even really liked sports, usually favoring crafts, carpentry, and outdoor activities to sports and other large social gatherings. One might label me as anti-social for that reason, but I can be quite amiable when I need to be, and I also sell quite a few things, so that makes me have to come out of my shell. However, I know of quite a few people who don't like football, and quite a few people who do. Really, I think it's a personal preference - although, as the text points out, it's basically more celebrated than Christmas. Here's what other people think of the Super Bowl:
Belgium: "A welcome excuse to invest millions in commercials. Sadly, there's no bowling involved. Also, some diva sings "God Save the Queen" – the American version."
So here's to Belgium, the other part of our class this week. Yes, of course my post is about America! Mostly...
Americans rush around, constantly thinking that they are running out of time. Personally, I hate clocks. My natural rhythm is to wake up at 8 and go to sleep at 12: now, how the heck am I supposed to survive in a country of morning people? Jokes aside, America really does suffer from clock hysteria. Personally, I think it may be at least part of the reason so many of us are on antidepressants, that and a very large ad campaign to convince Americans' that their lot in life is not enough. I typically don't handle very much TV, because after watching a full 1/4 of my show taken up by ads, I'm about ready to go buy a Mercedes, a BMW, a Ford, and some pain pills for good measure - likely for my pocket book. However, even I have invited the time-is-money concept into my life. When working, it feels like a part of my life is being taken away from me as I pay my tabs. Time is money, and I've fully integrated this into my business practices. (I build sheds, so eventually, the more tools I own, the faster I am and the more money I make.) However, sometimes this takes away from my enjoyment of the simpler stuff - while working, I feel like my time should be spent creating stuff, and while doing crafts, I feel like I should be working hard. Not enough time, that little voice says, not enough time!
Cited here is a great article by the Business Insider detailing the different views that each culture has on time. [3] Personally, I show up on time because everyone else does; at home, I tend to approach a task with an apparently more Asian view, that is, my task is rather like a pool, and there is time in my pool, and perhaps I may walk around it before realizing I must do G and H before starting A, and that does not bother me. Other people, I've noticed, tend to be driven insane by this. I enjoy that.
References:
1. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/1251722.abstract
2. http://mic.com/articles/80855/what-people-from-other-countries-think-of-america-s-obsession-with-the-super-bowl
3. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-different-cultures-understand-time-2014-5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)