Of those who know me, when it comes to music, I am a bit of a fanatic. I admit to having almost 4,000 songs on my IPOD, and the number is always growing. I hoard music like one would photographs, each song brings back a different memory, an emotion, a feeling associated with it. For example, every time I hear Sublime, I remember the entire summer I spent listening to it; a summer with fond memories of skateboarding and jumping off reservoir bridges with three good friends. Those friends were only there for the summer, and when they left I kept their memory and the times we had in that music, and it returns to me every time I hear it. My entire life seems to have a soundtrack. My earphones are in so often that I might as well have them surgically attached. Lately though something interesting has begun; throughout the course of this semester I have change my taste in music.
Our discussions in class, the articles, and the books I have read concerning the environment have fortified many of my own personal convictions, and they have also helped me look at things from new perspectives, which has been of great value. But the most vital part of this engagement, has been the desire to once again reacquaint myself with the peaceful sound of nature, a genre often forgotten.
Think about it, just to start a conversation with someone walking from one class to the next often requires some form of sign language to get their attention, in order for them to take the headphones off. Its as if life is just a station on the radio that you listen to in between your favorite songs. For me it has not just been the memories that music can bring back, but I can also relate with the its message or the feelings it invokes. Some lyrics seem to tell your story, or share your feelings, and that can be comforting. For others, a steady and rhythmic beat helps to form a barrier from an unpredictable world; to know the words, to sing along, to tune out of reality. It can be akin to the lulling comfort of the lotus leafs described in Homers "Odyssey", which caused anyone who ate the flower or seeds to forget who they were, and their only interest was to eat more.
Odysseus had to carry his crew back to the ship, to remind them of their journey-which was ...to return home.
Living life "unplugged," has helped me "return home" ...by listening to the world around me; the sound of birds, of leafs, of the wind, and rain; a symphony-created by my Heavenly Father, a hymn that reminds me of his love and his omnipresence.
In one of my favorite films, the main character is going though a midlife crisis of sorts; he seems to be overwhelmed with his lot in life, and he is tired of going through the motions; he feels disconnected. In the end he finds peace, when he stops to appreciate the world around him. He concludes the film with these words, stated in calm resolution:
"there's so much beauty in the world. Sometimes I feel like I'm seeing it all at once and it's too much. My heart fills up like a balloon that's about to burst. And then I remember to relax... and stop trying to hold on to it. And then it flows through me like rain, and I can't feel anything but gratitude... for every single moment..." (American Beauty)
I invite everyone who reads this blog to stop... unplug... disconnect, to reconnect and tune in to the beautiful sound of the wondrous elements that surrounds us,... and if you do, you will feel this same gratitude. If we are grateful for what we have, we will treat it as our Father intends.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A change of heart
I must admit, I originally signed up for this class because I needed two more credit hours to fulfill my full-time student quota. However, as I have come to class and participated in the discussions and made a few discoveries of my own, I have to say I have found myself drawn in more and more. This was the one class this semester that I can honestly say I think I learned something valuable. Not to say that my other classes failed to teach me anything, but 5 years from now or 10, will I remember everything that was taught? Probably not. In religion and the environment though, there were issues brought up and opinions shared that I will not easily forget. Perhaps the most valuable lesson I learned over this semester was that of hope. I remember being 7 years old and painted a shirt with a world on it that said “Earth day is every day”. Sounds cheesy, but I did it on my own accord and I was only seven years old. In my third grade class we raised money to ‘adopt’ an acre of rainforest in the Amazon. Basically I am just saying that I have been aware of our environment for a long time and I have also been aware of the issues that plague it. While I am always looking for ways to improve the environment, I have been very negative about it. I felt that there was just too much wrong in the world and that there was no way humans would stop it. They didn’t want too. Everywhere I looked humans were too selfish to be concerned with things that didn’t immediately effect them. I still feel that way sometimes. When we were talking about animals, we were discussing what consciousness and reason are and if animals have it. It blows my mind that humans are so proud and snobbish to think of themselves as mortally different then an animal. We both bleed, we both need air…we are animals (as much as some people get offended by that, it is true) We have spirit that makes us different, but our bodies are made from the same crude matter. When people stop thinking of themselves as superior to everything else, then we can expect a change. That is how the Native Americans lived and Eskimos and so forth, these civilizations lived in harmony with the environment. But even though I am human and still get irked by many things, I have learned about hope. Hope is as necessary to make a change as is knowledge. Reading Jane Goodall’s book, A Reason for Hope, really opened my mind to the power of hope. It is important to realize that there are many people out there who are aware of the issues that we face, are abhorred at the conditions of certain animals and are actively trying to make a difference. These are not environmental extremists but everyday people who are making a difference step by step. These people are opening humane animal shelters, volunteering at food banks or soup lines, they are volunteers in Africa who are building modest houses for wanting people and the vast amount of people who live in remote areas and love their forests and lands and are actively taking a stand to protect them. Instead of sitting on my butt and judging others, I need to be more supportive of the good things that are going on around me and participate in making the world a better place. Not only will it be better for the world, but it will be better for my soul. I will be happier. Thank you for the opportunity to sit and listen to all of your thoughts and opinions this semester. I have really been touched. God Bless.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Save the Planet, Spare the People
Moderation, acceptance, open-mindedness; all these have been the themes of our discussion. Wherever our discussions have taken us these three themes reoccur. When we spoke about evolution we talked about reconciling science and religion, when we spoke about different religions we talked about accepting differences, opening our minds to new ideas, and being willing to accept the truth of different faiths. These three things seem to have been the answer to all of the conflicts of opinion we’ve run into in our discussions. Why? They’re the solution because they solve human animosity, they don’t feed it, they don’t try to repress it. Moderation, acceptance, and open-mindedness calmly and effectively neutralize human animosity.
When Francis Bacon justified tormenting the earth he was neither moderate, accepting nor open-minded. When other men said that what they wanted was more important than the earth that provided those means weren't moderate, accepting or open-minded. It’s important that people get what they need to live, but brutalizing the earth we were given stewardship over in the name of want is another thing entirely.
Moderation: as the people of this planet learn to be content with getting what they need, maybe a few luxuries, and are content with that, the waste of earth’s resources will plummet. Eating until you’re gorged, or the gallon challenge illustrate wasteful practices of the American people. We’re so used to having so much that we’ve become almost indifferent to wasting it. I’m not blameless, but I’m working on changing my ways, and I hope that as I change I can help others change too. By being moderate in thought and consumption we’ll not only be more content, but be more willing to give to our earth and others.
Acceptance: People are starving in African, as well as in America. People are starving no matter where you go, but this doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t do anything about it. In accepting something you commit yourself to taking action, or at least encouraging action. When I accept money from someone else I’m committing to using it. When people become willing to accept differences in the human race they become committed to doing something about those differences – in a constructive way. When we learn to accept each other we become able to work together.
Open-minded: When people are excessive and not willing to accept different views they become like an idea quarantine. Nothing goes in or out. While this preserves what they have, they lose more than they gain. Just as eliminating the wolves of Yellowstone caused dramatic effects in the ecosystem, getting rid of all ideas we see as not being directly beneficial cause the ecosystem of thought to degenerate. We need to keep an open-mind, a cautious open-mind, but an open mind.
As the human race learns moderation , acceptance, and to be open-minded, we’ll be able to live peaceably with one another, which will lead us to being able to live peaceably with the earth we’ve been given to live on.
When Francis Bacon justified tormenting the earth he was neither moderate, accepting nor open-minded. When other men said that what they wanted was more important than the earth that provided those means weren't moderate, accepting or open-minded. It’s important that people get what they need to live, but brutalizing the earth we were given stewardship over in the name of want is another thing entirely.
Moderation: as the people of this planet learn to be content with getting what they need, maybe a few luxuries, and are content with that, the waste of earth’s resources will plummet. Eating until you’re gorged, or the gallon challenge illustrate wasteful practices of the American people. We’re so used to having so much that we’ve become almost indifferent to wasting it. I’m not blameless, but I’m working on changing my ways, and I hope that as I change I can help others change too. By being moderate in thought and consumption we’ll not only be more content, but be more willing to give to our earth and others.
Acceptance: People are starving in African, as well as in America. People are starving no matter where you go, but this doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t do anything about it. In accepting something you commit yourself to taking action, or at least encouraging action. When I accept money from someone else I’m committing to using it. When people become willing to accept differences in the human race they become committed to doing something about those differences – in a constructive way. When we learn to accept each other we become able to work together.
Open-minded: When people are excessive and not willing to accept different views they become like an idea quarantine. Nothing goes in or out. While this preserves what they have, they lose more than they gain. Just as eliminating the wolves of Yellowstone caused dramatic effects in the ecosystem, getting rid of all ideas we see as not being directly beneficial cause the ecosystem of thought to degenerate. We need to keep an open-mind, a cautious open-mind, but an open mind.
As the human race learns moderation , acceptance, and to be open-minded, we’ll be able to live peaceably with one another, which will lead us to being able to live peaceably with the earth we’ve been given to live on.
So now what??
This semester we have talked a lot about the differences between different religions and their views of the environment and how they interact with nature. We almost always have compared these religions with our own and how they differ and are the same. It has been interesting to see that for the most part we share the same beliefs and ideas as the rest of the world. There obviously was one religion on the earth at one time at the beginning and different ideas have sprung up as the years have past by but they all share many similarities. If you were to put the ideas of different religions on paper without labeling them and try to compare them I think that you would have a hard time differentiating between them. I think that the reason for this is that truth is truth and the main religions in the world today all have large portions of truth with them and that is why people over generations of time have stayed with these religions and practice them today. We all believe that people have an innate ability to recognize truth and have a desire to follow truth. Many small churches will try to rise and become relevant but unless they teach truth and practice it they will not last like the major religions of the world today. We can become an example of truth to those around us as we practice truth and live it.
Another interesting theme that we didn’t talk about in class much but was talked about much more in this blog is the need for balance. We all recognize that the earth is being abused at a rate never seen before in its history and things aren’t getting any better. We all want to help and do better than we are currently doing but I think we all realize that chaining ourselves to trees or breaking into animal labs or becoming a vegetarian isn’t a reality for us. (except for our teacher) I wonder what our level of commitment is to the environment and because we don’t value nature we use the crutch of “balance”. Now before anybody gets offended I am probably more guilty than anybody when it comes to this. I am probably the most selfish in this group when it comes to the environment as I like to live in a society that always tries to better my situation without thought of the consequences that I might have on the environment. I would be yelling louder than anyone that we can’t protect everything in the world so we should focus more on other things and balance our lives. I’m just saying that maybe, although most of us think it is crazy to chain ourselves to trees and free animals in labs, we just aren’t committed enough to take action. I’m not proposing anything radical but maybe we can individually decide on things that we are going to do better. Not ideas but actions that we can take individually or show to others that will make a difference. As I write this I am probably the last one who is going to actually take some action and change my lifestyle because I like how my life is but I recognize that I can do better. And although I can promise our teacher that I will never go vegetarian because I love love love meat there are other things that I can do that will make a difference.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Can We Strive to Become like Christ and Still be Ecologically Aware
Can we live our lives sympathetic to the needs of the environment in which we live while our eyes look to heaven?
Gordon D Kaufman’s article, wherein he seems to blame Christianity for a lack of awareness of ecological matters, due to some false sense of entitlement that we receive through the knowledge that we are formed in the image of God, states “the traditional Christian understanding of humanity in relation to God, with its powerfully anthropomorphic God-image, tends to obscure and dilute, in Christian faith and theology, ecological ways of thinking about our human place in the world.” He further argues that nature becomes an enemy of God when evolutionary and ecological issues come to the forefront. These ideas seem to stem from some notion that we cannot become one with God and the environment, but rather the closer we come to connecting with God, the more ‘idolatrous’ we become. He believes that Christian religion is more focused on the human problems, such as “despair, anxiety, guilt, death, meaninglessness, sin, injustice, and so forth.”(Kaufman 149, 155)
In class last Monday Dr. Peck brought up the subject solipsism, which is exactly what I believe is the essence of Kaufman’s argument.
So I ask myself, can we strive to become like Christ and still be ecologically aware?
I share Thomas Berry’s view that “if we lose the environment, we will lose our sense of God as well”.(Haught 276) Joseph F Smith is quoted as saying “men cannot worship the Creator and look with careless indifference upon his creatures…. Love of nature is akin to the love of God; the two are inseparable.” And in Mosiah we learn, “how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?”(Smith 201)
I cannot imagine a God of love and mercy, who would turn his back on his creations. Thus it is in my opinion that if we strive to become more like Christ, who is one with his father, we must reverence his creations. I also believe that we are truly in preparation of becoming creators ourselves, and thus it is important that we learn what it means to be righteous stewards.
The Lord has put forth many symbolic rituals to help us understand the important covenants that we make. He does them in a way that we can relate with, or in other words he speaks to us in “our own language”. In order to do this, he must understand the human nature. So if we are to be stewards, we too should learn to understand and be sympathetic with the elements of nature so that we can execute righteous dominion.
While I will agree that it is often our inclination to be anthropomorphic in our perceptions of the world around us, and that that may lead us to be insensitive to the eccentricities of the natural world; I cannot conclude that in our efforts to become like God, that we will be turning our backs on the environment.
"all things unto [the Lord] are spiritual" (D&C 29:34; see also v. 35)
References
(Haught, John F."Christianity and Ecology" Reprinted from The Promise of Nature. pg 276)
(Smith, Joseph F, cited in George B. Handley, "The Environmental Ethics of Mormon Belief," BYU Studies 40, no. 2(2001): 201.)
(Kaufman, Gordon D. "The Theological Structure of Christian Faith and the Feasibility of a Global Ecological Ethic" Board of Zyon.pg 148-161)
The Book of Mormon
Gordon D Kaufman’s article, wherein he seems to blame Christianity for a lack of awareness of ecological matters, due to some false sense of entitlement that we receive through the knowledge that we are formed in the image of God, states “the traditional Christian understanding of humanity in relation to God, with its powerfully anthropomorphic God-image, tends to obscure and dilute, in Christian faith and theology, ecological ways of thinking about our human place in the world.” He further argues that nature becomes an enemy of God when evolutionary and ecological issues come to the forefront. These ideas seem to stem from some notion that we cannot become one with God and the environment, but rather the closer we come to connecting with God, the more ‘idolatrous’ we become. He believes that Christian religion is more focused on the human problems, such as “despair, anxiety, guilt, death, meaninglessness, sin, injustice, and so forth.”(Kaufman 149, 155)
In class last Monday Dr. Peck brought up the subject solipsism, which is exactly what I believe is the essence of Kaufman’s argument.
So I ask myself, can we strive to become like Christ and still be ecologically aware?
I share Thomas Berry’s view that “if we lose the environment, we will lose our sense of God as well”.(Haught 276) Joseph F Smith is quoted as saying “men cannot worship the Creator and look with careless indifference upon his creatures…. Love of nature is akin to the love of God; the two are inseparable.” And in Mosiah we learn, “how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?”(Smith 201)
I cannot imagine a God of love and mercy, who would turn his back on his creations. Thus it is in my opinion that if we strive to become more like Christ, who is one with his father, we must reverence his creations. I also believe that we are truly in preparation of becoming creators ourselves, and thus it is important that we learn what it means to be righteous stewards.
The Lord has put forth many symbolic rituals to help us understand the important covenants that we make. He does them in a way that we can relate with, or in other words he speaks to us in “our own language”. In order to do this, he must understand the human nature. So if we are to be stewards, we too should learn to understand and be sympathetic with the elements of nature so that we can execute righteous dominion.
While I will agree that it is often our inclination to be anthropomorphic in our perceptions of the world around us, and that that may lead us to be insensitive to the eccentricities of the natural world; I cannot conclude that in our efforts to become like God, that we will be turning our backs on the environment.
"all things unto [the Lord] are spiritual" (D&C 29:34; see also v. 35)
References
(Haught, John F."Christianity and Ecology" Reprinted from The Promise of Nature. pg 276)
(Smith, Joseph F, cited in George B. Handley, "The Environmental Ethics of Mormon Belief," BYU Studies 40, no. 2(2001): 201.)
(Kaufman, Gordon D. "The Theological Structure of Christian Faith and the Feasibility of a Global Ecological Ethic" Board of Zyon.pg 148-161)
The Book of Mormon
Monday, April 6, 2009
Applying Current Revelation
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints179th Annual General Conference was replete with messages of hope and endurance through our trials, but underlying these central messages was an admonition to us all: prudence. More specifically, I would like to center my comments in conjunction with the messages given to us by Elder Robert D. Hales and Elder Dallin H. Oaks. Elder Hales’ message was one riddled with the reproach to avoid excess, and Elder Oaks pleaded with the Saints to extend service.
Throughout the semester, we have discussed the concept of stewardship. We have established the fact that God never intended us, His children, to do whatever we want with anything we can get our hands on. In truth, God has given us the responsibility, much like that of men and the priesthood, to take care of all things within our circle of influence and this includes the land that we live on, the people we interact with, and the other various forms of life. I personally do not think that the truths we learn in the temple being centered on the Creation is happenstantial. There is something centrally important in this setting: things that hold eternal significance and truth never change and never will. This teaching can be applied to the LDS perspective of avoiding excess. Like Elder Hales said, excess can be in the areas of food, debt, and addictions. When we choose to let ourselves focus on satiating or gorging the natural man, we are essentially trading in a portion of our agency for these items- we are exchanging our own divine worth, how sad. This can be, and should be applied to how we treat the wonderful earth God has provided for us to live on. It is in this frame of mind that I now ask myself and others to think about this: “Do I magnify my existence by giving more than I take from the earth, or do I chose to trade in my time and talents for things which have no eternal value and take away the chance for others to enjoy the necessities I enjoy?” The earth is not only our mortal, temporal home but it is also our eternal destination- we need to care.
In the spirit of Elder Oaks talk, I now turn to the cause of our wasteful and excessive sickness of consumption- entitlement and lack of service. Entitlement presupposes that whatever that “right” is that we are entitled to is owed to us regardless of what we have done or don’t do to “deserve” it. Something does not come from nothing. It is in the prideful supposition of entitlement that people ravage the earth in search of shiny things and supporting excessive diets. Service is the cure. When we spend time serving others we are able to more appropriately view our own current circumstances, to see how blessed we truly are and to be grateful. Our gratitude enables us to find joy in our daily lives and we tend to turn less to satiating exhorbant wants of the natural man that may deplete our beautiful home.
I have a long way to go, and I know that nothing will happen unless I start today and continually try to improve each and every day after that. We all make a difference, and in the end it is all that we do that determines not only who we are, but where we will be- I want to stay with the earth.
Throughout the semester, we have discussed the concept of stewardship. We have established the fact that God never intended us, His children, to do whatever we want with anything we can get our hands on. In truth, God has given us the responsibility, much like that of men and the priesthood, to take care of all things within our circle of influence and this includes the land that we live on, the people we interact with, and the other various forms of life. I personally do not think that the truths we learn in the temple being centered on the Creation is happenstantial. There is something centrally important in this setting: things that hold eternal significance and truth never change and never will. This teaching can be applied to the LDS perspective of avoiding excess. Like Elder Hales said, excess can be in the areas of food, debt, and addictions. When we choose to let ourselves focus on satiating or gorging the natural man, we are essentially trading in a portion of our agency for these items- we are exchanging our own divine worth, how sad. This can be, and should be applied to how we treat the wonderful earth God has provided for us to live on. It is in this frame of mind that I now ask myself and others to think about this: “Do I magnify my existence by giving more than I take from the earth, or do I chose to trade in my time and talents for things which have no eternal value and take away the chance for others to enjoy the necessities I enjoy?” The earth is not only our mortal, temporal home but it is also our eternal destination- we need to care.
In the spirit of Elder Oaks talk, I now turn to the cause of our wasteful and excessive sickness of consumption- entitlement and lack of service. Entitlement presupposes that whatever that “right” is that we are entitled to is owed to us regardless of what we have done or don’t do to “deserve” it. Something does not come from nothing. It is in the prideful supposition of entitlement that people ravage the earth in search of shiny things and supporting excessive diets. Service is the cure. When we spend time serving others we are able to more appropriately view our own current circumstances, to see how blessed we truly are and to be grateful. Our gratitude enables us to find joy in our daily lives and we tend to turn less to satiating exhorbant wants of the natural man that may deplete our beautiful home.
I have a long way to go, and I know that nothing will happen unless I start today and continually try to improve each and every day after that. We all make a difference, and in the end it is all that we do that determines not only who we are, but where we will be- I want to stay with the earth.
MY LAST BLOG ENTRY!!!
As the title of the blog denotes this is my last blog entry. I have enjoyed writing my views on religion and the environment and reading everyone’s blogs as well. Thank you for taking the time to read my blogs and writing your comments in support or disagreement. Like Dr. Peck says heated discussion is healthy. I have struggled on what to write about in this concluding blog. I want to share my views on the class and our discussions in class and how it has made me a better person. I have enjoyed the episodes of Star Trekk and the Simpsons. As a quick side note I think we should end the semester by watching Ferngully the movie. Anyways, It has been interesting to listen to the different viewpoints of individuals in our class. I am glade that individuals spoke up about what they believe in and have passion for. I do not think that there is ever a clean cut answers to questions regarding the environment or religion. Studying the different religions has shown me that the environment is a part of all the different beliefs in the world. This tells me that the environment should be well taken care of if everyone practiced what they preached. To me sometimes it is the extreme religions that care most about nature and the environment. I do not think that it is the healthiest to be extreme but some time extreme situation require extreme measures of treatment. I try to reflect back to many lessons learned from all the different religions. Sometimes the primitive religions show a great appreciation for nature then do the more affluent religions. It might be because primitive religions were so infused with their surroundings that there is not difference. I feel that we have to make an effort to while primitive religions no effort is made because it is ingrained in the society. I am happy to see that the LDS community is really making an effort to step up our policies on the environment. I was listening to the news in my car and a report come on about our advances in the downtown salt lake construction and how we are implementing dramatic environmentally conscious practices. It saddens me to know that the world does not think that the LDS community is environmentally friendly. We should be the most environment conscious people because we know the truth about the future of the earth and its state in the eternities. I think that individuals can make differences and we should one person at a time try to change our bad habits or in better words make our weakness become strengths. Thanks again for the blogs and opinions. It has been great.
Friday, April 3, 2009
A Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey
I chose to read the book "Reason for Hope", authored by Jane Goodall with Philip Berman. Ever since Gary Larsen came out with his famous Jane Goodall cartoon in the Far Side, I've been interested in her work. However, the source of all my Goodall knowledge came from a National Geographic special. Therefore I found it fascinating to read her autobiography.
Goodall chronicles the stages of her life, from her beginnings in middle-class England to her present-day status as a world-famous scientist. She talks of her time as a secretary with Louis Leakey, her family life, and her interactions with the chimps. I found some facts of her life quite surprising. For example, Goodall was not trained as a scientist when she first began to study the chimpanzees. I was also surprised to find that her mother assisted her in the first expedition to Gombe, Tanzania.
Interlaced with the story of her life is a focus on the spiritual aspect. I appreciated this mode of story-telling. The focus on the spiritual gave her story a thread that ran throughout the book without dominating it. Goodall lays out her spiritual evolution in simple, direct terms and allows us to see the events that shaped her spirituality. I particularly related to her story of visiting the Cathedral of Notre Dame. She refers to this experience as “a suddenly captured moment of eternity”. I, too, have felt like at moments I’ve been outside of time communing with God. She also spoke of how God and other moments like the time in Notre Dame had helped her to overcome the death of her second husband. This struck a particular chord in me. As I’ve dealt with the death of loved ones, I’ve realized that you can either turn away from God or turn towards God. It’s difficult to trust Him after death, but as Goodall discovered, a reliance on God is the best way to overcome death.
Another aspect of the book that I enjoyed was the poetry that she included. As I’ve taken this class and studied the book, “The Two Cultures”, I’ve thought of the divide between science and the humanities. I feel like I’m often too focused on my studies to study the works of writers and artists. And it seems that Humanities majors will extol the beauties of the English language without recognizing the beauty inherent in evolution. Goodalll shows a balanced nature in her book. She has both an analytical and creative side to her and provides an example for all scientists.
The biggest weakness in the book was that it focused too much on Goodall herself. This is one common weakness in an autobiographical work, and Goodall is not able to avoid it. Other than Goodall, there are few characters in her story that capture the imagination. I wanted to know more about her mother Vanne or her son Grub. They must have influenced her life greatly, yet they remain two dimensional characters. Goodall speaks of how relationships are an important part of our lives and our spirituality, and yet she only allows us a cursory glance into her own relationships. Her first marriage and its failure is documented but not detailed, and even her second husband, Derek, remains somewhat flat, even though his story occupies much of the latter half of the book. Goodall denies us the full richness of her life by not allowing us to understand her feelings towards other people.
I found the title of Goodall’s book “A Reason to Hope” somewhat of a paradox at first. She describes the desperate plight of the chimpanzees and their struggle against extinction. She also elaborates on the dangerous future our world faces. She has a whole chapter dedicated to the discovery of war and other acts of aggression among the chimpanzees, and she believes that violence is somewhat instinctual. Honestly, when I finished the book, I wasn’t sure what was the reason to hope. But Goodall’s tone is continuously optimistic throughout the book. I believe it is her faith in God that allows her to hope. “A Reason to Hope” reinforced my belief that we cannot take God out of environmentalism. It made me realize that if we believe in God, we can have hope that humanity will survive and so will the rich diversity of species that He has created. By understanding the love of God and the interconnectedness between all organisms, we will not wantonly destroy our natural environs. One of the definitions of hope is to wait for. We are waiting for a better world, and if we have faith in God, we can act, motivated by our belief, to make that better world come to be.
I read this book the whole way through.
Goodall chronicles the stages of her life, from her beginnings in middle-class England to her present-day status as a world-famous scientist. She talks of her time as a secretary with Louis Leakey, her family life, and her interactions with the chimps. I found some facts of her life quite surprising. For example, Goodall was not trained as a scientist when she first began to study the chimpanzees. I was also surprised to find that her mother assisted her in the first expedition to Gombe, Tanzania.
Interlaced with the story of her life is a focus on the spiritual aspect. I appreciated this mode of story-telling. The focus on the spiritual gave her story a thread that ran throughout the book without dominating it. Goodall lays out her spiritual evolution in simple, direct terms and allows us to see the events that shaped her spirituality. I particularly related to her story of visiting the Cathedral of Notre Dame. She refers to this experience as “a suddenly captured moment of eternity”. I, too, have felt like at moments I’ve been outside of time communing with God. She also spoke of how God and other moments like the time in Notre Dame had helped her to overcome the death of her second husband. This struck a particular chord in me. As I’ve dealt with the death of loved ones, I’ve realized that you can either turn away from God or turn towards God. It’s difficult to trust Him after death, but as Goodall discovered, a reliance on God is the best way to overcome death.
Another aspect of the book that I enjoyed was the poetry that she included. As I’ve taken this class and studied the book, “The Two Cultures”, I’ve thought of the divide between science and the humanities. I feel like I’m often too focused on my studies to study the works of writers and artists. And it seems that Humanities majors will extol the beauties of the English language without recognizing the beauty inherent in evolution. Goodalll shows a balanced nature in her book. She has both an analytical and creative side to her and provides an example for all scientists.
The biggest weakness in the book was that it focused too much on Goodall herself. This is one common weakness in an autobiographical work, and Goodall is not able to avoid it. Other than Goodall, there are few characters in her story that capture the imagination. I wanted to know more about her mother Vanne or her son Grub. They must have influenced her life greatly, yet they remain two dimensional characters. Goodall speaks of how relationships are an important part of our lives and our spirituality, and yet she only allows us a cursory glance into her own relationships. Her first marriage and its failure is documented but not detailed, and even her second husband, Derek, remains somewhat flat, even though his story occupies much of the latter half of the book. Goodall denies us the full richness of her life by not allowing us to understand her feelings towards other people.
I found the title of Goodall’s book “A Reason to Hope” somewhat of a paradox at first. She describes the desperate plight of the chimpanzees and their struggle against extinction. She also elaborates on the dangerous future our world faces. She has a whole chapter dedicated to the discovery of war and other acts of aggression among the chimpanzees, and she believes that violence is somewhat instinctual. Honestly, when I finished the book, I wasn’t sure what was the reason to hope. But Goodall’s tone is continuously optimistic throughout the book. I believe it is her faith in God that allows her to hope. “A Reason to Hope” reinforced my belief that we cannot take God out of environmentalism. It made me realize that if we believe in God, we can have hope that humanity will survive and so will the rich diversity of species that He has created. By understanding the love of God and the interconnectedness between all organisms, we will not wantonly destroy our natural environs. One of the definitions of hope is to wait for. We are waiting for a better world, and if we have faith in God, we can act, motivated by our belief, to make that better world come to be.
I read this book the whole way through.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Refuge: An Unnatural History of Family and Place
Refuge: An Unnatural History of Family and Place(Of which I have read in full)
Terry Tempest Williams
Vintage books
Terry Tempest Williams, a Mormon naturalist, women’s rights activist, and author of An Unspoken Hunger: Stories from the Field; Desert Quartet; Leap; Red: Passion and Patience in the Desert; The Open Space of Democracy; Mosaic: Finding Beauty in a broken World; and of course her classic work Refuge.
She received the Robert Marshall Award from the wilderness society, which is considered their highest honor for an American citizen. In addition to this she has received various other awards for her literary prowess.
In this classic work Refuge, Williams chronicles the events surrounding the flooding of the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, due to the record-level rising of Great Salt Lake, reaching a historic high of 3,300 square miles in 1987. At one time State St. in Salt Lake City was a man made river way, in order to channel or reroute the destructive power of the flood. Fish literally swam where cars once drove, and there are accounts of men catching trout as they sat on the banks of piled sand bags.
As the water levels rose and the lake swelled, flooding America’s first water-fowl sanctuary, Williams simultaneously documents another tragedy, which seemed to grow at the same pace as the water ... her mother’s cancer.
Williams, reasons in her prologue that she was telling this story “in an attempt to heal herself, to confront what she did not know, and to create a path for herself, with the idea that a ‘memory is the only way home.’” And then she states, “I have been in retreat. This is my return.” This is truly an accurate statement, as she seeks not to persuade or attempt to make any convincing argument to the reader, but rather, her voice and incites are more fluid. Her accounts are more like journal entries that have been well thought out, as only a person with the patience and attention to detail as a bird watcher can. Rather, she seems more to be attempting to make sense of how “that which is within, relates to that to which is without”, pulling the reader into a journey of self actualization in a world of uncertainty, tragedy, but also beauty in the mysticism, and the strength of the human will.
It is a pleasure to look through her eyes, as she possesses an artistic eloquence in her perceptions of the natural and supernatural world surrounding her. She shows a great reverence for the environment, and relates many of its natural processes and cycles to that of her own life. She struggles to come to terms with the loss of both places she calls home; the beauty, diversity and peace of the bird refuge, and the assuring arms and wisdom of her mother. She slowly comes to grips with the process that can be most difficult to all of us, which is death; she states, “I am slowly, painfully discovering that my refuge is not found in my mother, my grandmother, or even the birds of Bear River. My refuge exists in my capacity to love. If I learn to love death then I can begin to find refuge in change.”
Reading this book has left me captivated in its philosophy, and it has also provided me a sense of solace as well because it hit very close to home. My own mother had breast cancer ten years ago and we had hoped its flood of pain and uncertainty had passed us by, but its dark clouds have reappeared and threaten our family once again from losing part our home ... our ‘refuge.’ She stated it accurately when she stated: “an individual doesn’t get cancer, a family does.”
It was an unfortunate, reoccurring theme for the women in her family, an occurrence she later discovered may not have been merely a case of unexplainable bad genes, but rather the effect of nuclear bomb testing that was taking place during the life of her grandmother, her mother, and even the author's own personal youth; recounting memories of seeing flashes of light and mushroom clouds from the rear window of her parents car as they traveled through Nevada, when she was but a child; ashes falling from the sky like gray snowflakes, an eerie sight; one which would come back to haunt her in more ways than one.
She finally came to the conclusion that her refuge was not a place outside herself ... “like the lone heron that walks the shores of Great Salt Lake,” as she puts it, but rather “adapting as the world is adapting”.
Although she learns to adapt to the things she could not change, she also made the decision to begin fighting for the things she could. Williams-fighting cancer herself-and others similarly affected by the US Army's above ground nuclear bomb testing during the Vietnam war; rallied together and marched onto the restrictive bomb facility; in an act that seemed less in protest than of closer, much like a child confronting the murderer of her parent, as if to say, although you have taken so much from me, I will no longer allow you to determine my capacity to love, to have peace, and to enjoy happiness.
This book has helped me to search new avenues of thought, and also taught me that “dying doesn’t cause suffering, resistance to it does”. I would recommend this book to others who are trying to come to terms with the uncertainty of an ever changing world. I end with a poem referenced by Williams; written by Wendell Berry:
The Peace of Wild Things
When despair for the world grows in me
and I wake in the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting with their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.
Terry Tempest Williams
Vintage books
Terry Tempest Williams, a Mormon naturalist, women’s rights activist, and author of An Unspoken Hunger: Stories from the Field; Desert Quartet; Leap; Red: Passion and Patience in the Desert; The Open Space of Democracy; Mosaic: Finding Beauty in a broken World; and of course her classic work Refuge.
She received the Robert Marshall Award from the wilderness society, which is considered their highest honor for an American citizen. In addition to this she has received various other awards for her literary prowess.
In this classic work Refuge, Williams chronicles the events surrounding the flooding of the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, due to the record-level rising of Great Salt Lake, reaching a historic high of 3,300 square miles in 1987. At one time State St. in Salt Lake City was a man made river way, in order to channel or reroute the destructive power of the flood. Fish literally swam where cars once drove, and there are accounts of men catching trout as they sat on the banks of piled sand bags.
As the water levels rose and the lake swelled, flooding America’s first water-fowl sanctuary, Williams simultaneously documents another tragedy, which seemed to grow at the same pace as the water ... her mother’s cancer.
Williams, reasons in her prologue that she was telling this story “in an attempt to heal herself, to confront what she did not know, and to create a path for herself, with the idea that a ‘memory is the only way home.’” And then she states, “I have been in retreat. This is my return.” This is truly an accurate statement, as she seeks not to persuade or attempt to make any convincing argument to the reader, but rather, her voice and incites are more fluid. Her accounts are more like journal entries that have been well thought out, as only a person with the patience and attention to detail as a bird watcher can. Rather, she seems more to be attempting to make sense of how “that which is within, relates to that to which is without”, pulling the reader into a journey of self actualization in a world of uncertainty, tragedy, but also beauty in the mysticism, and the strength of the human will.
It is a pleasure to look through her eyes, as she possesses an artistic eloquence in her perceptions of the natural and supernatural world surrounding her. She shows a great reverence for the environment, and relates many of its natural processes and cycles to that of her own life. She struggles to come to terms with the loss of both places she calls home; the beauty, diversity and peace of the bird refuge, and the assuring arms and wisdom of her mother. She slowly comes to grips with the process that can be most difficult to all of us, which is death; she states, “I am slowly, painfully discovering that my refuge is not found in my mother, my grandmother, or even the birds of Bear River. My refuge exists in my capacity to love. If I learn to love death then I can begin to find refuge in change.”
Reading this book has left me captivated in its philosophy, and it has also provided me a sense of solace as well because it hit very close to home. My own mother had breast cancer ten years ago and we had hoped its flood of pain and uncertainty had passed us by, but its dark clouds have reappeared and threaten our family once again from losing part our home ... our ‘refuge.’ She stated it accurately when she stated: “an individual doesn’t get cancer, a family does.”
It was an unfortunate, reoccurring theme for the women in her family, an occurrence she later discovered may not have been merely a case of unexplainable bad genes, but rather the effect of nuclear bomb testing that was taking place during the life of her grandmother, her mother, and even the author's own personal youth; recounting memories of seeing flashes of light and mushroom clouds from the rear window of her parents car as they traveled through Nevada, when she was but a child; ashes falling from the sky like gray snowflakes, an eerie sight; one which would come back to haunt her in more ways than one.
She finally came to the conclusion that her refuge was not a place outside herself ... “like the lone heron that walks the shores of Great Salt Lake,” as she puts it, but rather “adapting as the world is adapting”.
Although she learns to adapt to the things she could not change, she also made the decision to begin fighting for the things she could. Williams-fighting cancer herself-and others similarly affected by the US Army's above ground nuclear bomb testing during the Vietnam war; rallied together and marched onto the restrictive bomb facility; in an act that seemed less in protest than of closer, much like a child confronting the murderer of her parent, as if to say, although you have taken so much from me, I will no longer allow you to determine my capacity to love, to have peace, and to enjoy happiness.
This book has helped me to search new avenues of thought, and also taught me that “dying doesn’t cause suffering, resistance to it does”. I would recommend this book to others who are trying to come to terms with the uncertainty of an ever changing world. I end with a poem referenced by Williams; written by Wendell Berry:
The Peace of Wild Things
When despair for the world grows in me
and I wake in the night at the least sound
in fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
who do not tax their lives with forethought
of grief. I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
waiting with their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and am free.
Finding Beauty in a Broken World, by Terry Tempest Williams
Finding Beauty in a Broken World
By: Terry Tempest Williams
“A mosaic is a conversation between what is broken” (pp. 6). In the very beginning of the book, Williams introduces the topic of mosaic art. She gives a brief history, citing many famous mosaics such as the mosaic located in Pompeii. This particular mosaic richly shows the local flora, fauna and animal life of Roman occupied Egypt in 30 BC. She discusses the evolution from paganism to Christianity and how the mosaics became “everyman’s Bible; one didn’t have to rely on words, only the shimmering stories told though images above, meant to overwhelm the viewer as one would be in the presence of God” (pp. 1).
Terry Tempest Williams uses the imagery of the mosaic, a beautiful compilation of broken and irregular pieces of stone and marble, to represent the earth and how we can find beauty in all of its imperfections. She said, “There is perfection in imperfection. The interstices or gaps between the tesserae [broken pieces of marble that make up mosaics] speak their own language in mosaic” (pp.35). Two of the examples that I found most engaging were the example of the prairie dog and genocide in Rwanda.
For the first several chapters, TTW discusses the habits, anatomy, and evolution of prairie dogs, and the impact that they have on the Earth. Based on her research, she concluded that, “nine vertebrate species may drop in population or disappear completely if prairie dogs are eliminated from glassland ecosystems” (pp.35). This is a startling statistic considering that Niles Eldredge of the New York Times published that the Utah Prairie Dog is one of the species that is most likely to become extinct in the twenty-first century. As it stands right now, approximately 98% of prairie dogs in Colorado have already been eliminated, and often in cruel and inhumane ways.
However, TTW points out that if you talk to farmers and agriculturalists in the west, prairie dogs are considered to be nuisances. They burrow holes in which horses and cattle can stumble and break their legs, they also cause other damage to crop and grazing lands. Many believe that the government should compensate farmers whose lands have been destroyed from the existence of prairie dogs (pp. 43). However, to date, there has not been a bill that has passed enacting such a law.
From the book, you can tell that TTW is sympathetic to the plight of the prairie dog. She points out that the prairie dogs, in addition to providing biodiversity, also have other redeeming qualities. She says, “The hunger of prairie dogs shocks the landscape into greater productivity. Their digging and scratching stimulates the soil, creating more opportunities for seeds to germinate. With heightened water drainage as a result of their tunnels, plants grow. Plant diversity follows. Animal diversity follows the plants” (pp. 56-57). Like the broken mosaic pieces that look like nothing more than pretty, tattered stones up close, from a distance they create a beautiful work of art. So are the prairie dogs a seemingly insignificant player in the mosaic of the world, but when viewed from a distance, they contribute to the beauty and productivity that is our Earth.
She then discusses what it actually means to care, and where our priorities lie. TTW gives a vivid description of many of the ways that civilians exterminate these prairie dogs, and to be honest, many of them made me sick to my stomach. It was terrible to think that somebody would set fire to the burrows and extinguish anything that laid therein. She then pointed out something that really stuck with me. She said,
“To regard any animal as something lesser than we are, not equal to our own vitality and adaptation as a species, is to begin a deadly descent into the dark abyss of arrogance where cruelty is nurtured in the corners of certitude. Daily acts of destruction and brutality are committed because we fail to see the dignity of Other” (pp. 127).
She applied this principle to the genocide in Rwanda. Terry Tempest Williams travelled there to study genocide and happened to be there for some interviews when the planning and execution for the genocide memorial was being put up. She was struck by the frailty of human nature, and our patternistic lifestyles. After the Holocaust, we said, “Never again”, and yet this sort of thing continues to happen again and again. The world is full of broken shards, and yet, like the mosaic artworks, these broken pieces have to come together to make a beautiful work of art. TTW explains, “Shards of glass can cut and would or magnify a vision. Mosaic celebrated brokenness and the beauty of being brought together” (pp. 385). However, we have to see the broken pieces and allow them to inspire us to change. Jane Goodall said, “Only if we understand can we care. Only if we care will we help. Only if we help shall they be saved” (pp. 71).
This book was inspiring for me. I loved how descriptive she was of the time that she spent amongst the prairie dogs and the people in Africa. It truly afforded me the opportunity to put myself into that position and think how I would react. It enabled me to form opinions about my world and how I wanted to help sustain it. We certainly live in an imperfect world, but we can find beauty and perfection in God’s creations if we look at the whole picture, the whole work of art. We can perfect each piece of the puzzle one by one, and find beauty in the broken world as TTW would have us do.
By: Terry Tempest Williams
“A mosaic is a conversation between what is broken” (pp. 6). In the very beginning of the book, Williams introduces the topic of mosaic art. She gives a brief history, citing many famous mosaics such as the mosaic located in Pompeii. This particular mosaic richly shows the local flora, fauna and animal life of Roman occupied Egypt in 30 BC. She discusses the evolution from paganism to Christianity and how the mosaics became “everyman’s Bible; one didn’t have to rely on words, only the shimmering stories told though images above, meant to overwhelm the viewer as one would be in the presence of God” (pp. 1).
Terry Tempest Williams uses the imagery of the mosaic, a beautiful compilation of broken and irregular pieces of stone and marble, to represent the earth and how we can find beauty in all of its imperfections. She said, “There is perfection in imperfection. The interstices or gaps between the tesserae [broken pieces of marble that make up mosaics] speak their own language in mosaic” (pp.35). Two of the examples that I found most engaging were the example of the prairie dog and genocide in Rwanda.
For the first several chapters, TTW discusses the habits, anatomy, and evolution of prairie dogs, and the impact that they have on the Earth. Based on her research, she concluded that, “nine vertebrate species may drop in population or disappear completely if prairie dogs are eliminated from glassland ecosystems” (pp.35). This is a startling statistic considering that Niles Eldredge of the New York Times published that the Utah Prairie Dog is one of the species that is most likely to become extinct in the twenty-first century. As it stands right now, approximately 98% of prairie dogs in Colorado have already been eliminated, and often in cruel and inhumane ways.
However, TTW points out that if you talk to farmers and agriculturalists in the west, prairie dogs are considered to be nuisances. They burrow holes in which horses and cattle can stumble and break their legs, they also cause other damage to crop and grazing lands. Many believe that the government should compensate farmers whose lands have been destroyed from the existence of prairie dogs (pp. 43). However, to date, there has not been a bill that has passed enacting such a law.
From the book, you can tell that TTW is sympathetic to the plight of the prairie dog. She points out that the prairie dogs, in addition to providing biodiversity, also have other redeeming qualities. She says, “The hunger of prairie dogs shocks the landscape into greater productivity. Their digging and scratching stimulates the soil, creating more opportunities for seeds to germinate. With heightened water drainage as a result of their tunnels, plants grow. Plant diversity follows. Animal diversity follows the plants” (pp. 56-57). Like the broken mosaic pieces that look like nothing more than pretty, tattered stones up close, from a distance they create a beautiful work of art. So are the prairie dogs a seemingly insignificant player in the mosaic of the world, but when viewed from a distance, they contribute to the beauty and productivity that is our Earth.
She then discusses what it actually means to care, and where our priorities lie. TTW gives a vivid description of many of the ways that civilians exterminate these prairie dogs, and to be honest, many of them made me sick to my stomach. It was terrible to think that somebody would set fire to the burrows and extinguish anything that laid therein. She then pointed out something that really stuck with me. She said,
“To regard any animal as something lesser than we are, not equal to our own vitality and adaptation as a species, is to begin a deadly descent into the dark abyss of arrogance where cruelty is nurtured in the corners of certitude. Daily acts of destruction and brutality are committed because we fail to see the dignity of Other” (pp. 127).
She applied this principle to the genocide in Rwanda. Terry Tempest Williams travelled there to study genocide and happened to be there for some interviews when the planning and execution for the genocide memorial was being put up. She was struck by the frailty of human nature, and our patternistic lifestyles. After the Holocaust, we said, “Never again”, and yet this sort of thing continues to happen again and again. The world is full of broken shards, and yet, like the mosaic artworks, these broken pieces have to come together to make a beautiful work of art. TTW explains, “Shards of glass can cut and would or magnify a vision. Mosaic celebrated brokenness and the beauty of being brought together” (pp. 385). However, we have to see the broken pieces and allow them to inspire us to change. Jane Goodall said, “Only if we understand can we care. Only if we care will we help. Only if we help shall they be saved” (pp. 71).
This book was inspiring for me. I loved how descriptive she was of the time that she spent amongst the prairie dogs and the people in Africa. It truly afforded me the opportunity to put myself into that position and think how I would react. It enabled me to form opinions about my world and how I wanted to help sustain it. We certainly live in an imperfect world, but we can find beauty and perfection in God’s creations if we look at the whole picture, the whole work of art. We can perfect each piece of the puzzle one by one, and find beauty in the broken world as TTW would have us do.
A Reason for Hope
I read the book, Reason for Hope: A spiritual journey, by Jane Goodall with Phillip Berman. I had picked this book out since the beginning of the semester because I have loved Jane Goodall and the work she does for a long time. This book is similar to an autobiography so I was given the chance to learn a lot about her life and her thoughts. While she did go into her studies in Africa part way through the book, it did not start out there. She reminisced about her childhood and how she grew up, living through the second world war and the fear that the Nazi’s instilled in her. However, the things that got her through that terrible time in the world were her family and the nature around her. As she goes on, she tells of her time spent with the chimpanzees in Gombe, the death of her second husband and the terror she felt when rebels swept through her camp and took students hostage. Through it all, she reflects on her spiritual beliefs. Just like all of us, there were times that that belief was sorely tried and for moments, when it left her. Throughout the whole book, Jane reflects on hope. How can we hope for a better future? How is that possible when human selfish greed-lust for power, land, and wealth-was concurring the wish for peace? I have thought this way for a long time. I could not see how we as humans could overcome our own carnal desires in order to create a better world. Yet Jane Goodall does not stop there, instead of filling our minds with pictures of doom and gloom, she speaks of how far we have come since the beginning of mankind. We have been on this earth only for a short while evolutionarily speaking. Just a couple hundred years ago conditions for the poor and feeble were atrocious. Women and children were required to work long shifts with no breaks for little food. Slavery was acceptable and religious persecution was worse than it is today. Today however, slavery has been abolished, welfare is more accessible, charities have been founded, and many social reforms have taken place all over the world. The United Nations has been established, and human dignity and rights are now topics of concern. When Ms. Goodall points out all of these instances in our world, I am able to see that while there are many things that still need to be worked out, we are moving in the right direction. I believe it is this that illustrates the human potential for good. We all have contributions to make, some of us may make large ones while others of us make smaller ones (they are all different). But all of us blending and mixing our influences in life, may in turn influence the life of one person or many that will be able to influence the lives of millions or billions of people. Each one of us has the ability to change history. Given time, the human race is probably very capable of creating a moral and environmentally aware society. The problem is, how much time do we have? At the rate things are going now, not much. But we could each simply try to be a little better, every one of us, we could do that. And that perhaps, might make all the difference. When I have children, I hope to instill that faith in them. Who knows, by then the world may be much worse off than it is now and the need for better people will be even more urgent. It is important for them to see the issues around them instead of ignoring them and to be an influence for good. I wish to teach my children that we are lucky to be living in this country, but not to take it for granted. It is not our birthright to have the luxuries that we do. In fact if we all lived a more humbly then there would be much more to go around for other less fortunate people.
I loved reading this book because I feel that at this point in my life I am feeling very negatively towards most people’s views of the environment. I have always seen the doom and gloom side of the argument, and while it is most definitely still there and I do not recommend disregarding it entirely, there are bright spots. Not everyone roles tires on fire down canyons in Utah, or litters, tortures animals, drives 85 on the freeway, or buys a mansion of a house. There are many wonderful and good things that are happening and instead of getting angry about the horrible things, I need to get active and support those wonderful things that are happening all around us. The more people support them, the more other people will realize what is happening and will want to make a difference as well. Scaring people does not work, but encouraging them and helping them to make a difference does. When that happens I believe we will see a difference in how the environment and humanity is treated.
I read this book all the way through.
Ecology and Human Need
I chose to read Ecology and Human Need by Thomas Sieger Derr
I found it quite interesting that this book was published twice. The first time it was published under the title Ecology and the Human Liberation in 1973 and then under the new title in 1975. To perhaps account for this change, I found this little tidbit online, “In 1972, the United Nations held the first international Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, prepared by Rene Dubos and other experts. This conference was the origin of the phrase "Think Globally, Act Locally".” It is funny isn’t it? Even our perceptions of a book’s title will determine if we actually want to pick up the thing and read it. The American populace (that was actually interested in this book) went from a want of liberation to need in the course of two years.
I honestly felt like I was reliving the entire course of our class as I progressed through this novel. Thomas Derr is a Christian, though he never specifies a denomination. Derr begins by setting his novel in the present (remember we’re talking 1973 here) uncertain religious, political, and ecological times. He talks continues to discuss in great depth the three leading solutions to the economic crisis, which are: a new biblical theory, process theology, and the remystification of nature.
What he does next surprised me. He gives a long critical assessment of each of these options. He doesn’t believe in reworking Christianity through a new biblical theory. He believes that the Bible as it currently stands holds all the truth and doctrine to be ecologically minded- if not in word, the in the spirit of the word. In responding to process theology he is upset with those people that would like to have God be subject to natural laws in such a way that He is not omnipotent. Derr believes, and I agree, that one does not have to compromise God’s transcendence and omnipotence to have an ecologically friendly Creator. In response to those that would have us return to the mystification of nature i.e. give up technology and live in the dark ages etc. Derr almost seems to laugh, as this is highly unlikely and not even truly desirable. Derr supports this argument with the central idea that it is in human nature to be free of what he calls “natural tyranny.” Meaning, that part of man’s nature and divine responsibility is to have dominion over the earth and subdue it- now this doesn’t mean to abuse it. He essentially believes that to try to revert back to the Dark Ages would be denying our own nature- one of progression, and I agree.
The second half of the book is devoted towards a possible solution. Derr analyzes ownership, resources, and politics in turn through the lens of a Christian ecologist. Ownership is a divine Christian right (as it was in the Garden of Eden that Adam was given dominion over the whole earth). Ownership is not a bad thing, but abuse is. Derr argues that it is good for people to have stewardship over land and the earth because these things teach us responsibility and spiritual truth. He cautions however that dominion is not domination and that ownership means ethical and moral responsibility to the future generations. Our responsibility to the future is viewed in units of resources in this book. We cannot predict the temperament of the future, but we can insure that they have access to the same things that we have. Derr argues that this responsibility to others alone should be reason enough to be ecologically minded as the Bible states that we have a responsibility to our fellow man. This responsibility inevitably leads to politics. Derr realizes that there is a certain practicality that must be addressed in the realm of politics. He talks about poor and underdeveloped nations. These nations will not halt progress simply because we cannot effectively manage our resources. Derr offers a better solution.
Derr asks something that is a relatively simple concept, though perhaps not simple to apply on a large scale. He notes that national wellbeing is currently measured by GDP per capita. He argues that perhaps what we need to do is change our thinking to a standard or quality of life per capita idea. In this way, people are seeking a lifestyle and not merely chasing a dollar. I agree that this is a better way to view life, though it would be hard to convince Americans that a comfortable quality of life may be less than they now experience.
Up until this point in the book I felt really good about Derr’s ideas. It is on the next point that I disagree. Derr puts forth ideas on how to manage population growth- stating that it is our responsibility to curb human populations. He puts forth relatively Christian approaches to the problem, and thinks that we should look at the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth as completed. As a Latter-day Saint, I cannot condone this opinion though I agree that family size is a matter to be determined between husband, wife, and the Lord.
All in all, the book was great. The only thing I would have liked would be some input form other religious stances- but the book was meant to be a Christian perspective alone. I also think that the data could be updated, but that is what I get for reading a 1970’s novel. The truth that really struck me was this: if these things were of dire importance 36 years ago, how much more imperative that we take up the cause today because we haven’t done much better, if any, since 1973.
(I read this book all the way through)
I found it quite interesting that this book was published twice. The first time it was published under the title Ecology and the Human Liberation in 1973 and then under the new title in 1975. To perhaps account for this change, I found this little tidbit online, “In 1972, the United Nations held the first international Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, prepared by Rene Dubos and other experts. This conference was the origin of the phrase "Think Globally, Act Locally".” It is funny isn’t it? Even our perceptions of a book’s title will determine if we actually want to pick up the thing and read it. The American populace (that was actually interested in this book) went from a want of liberation to need in the course of two years.
I honestly felt like I was reliving the entire course of our class as I progressed through this novel. Thomas Derr is a Christian, though he never specifies a denomination. Derr begins by setting his novel in the present (remember we’re talking 1973 here) uncertain religious, political, and ecological times. He talks continues to discuss in great depth the three leading solutions to the economic crisis, which are: a new biblical theory, process theology, and the remystification of nature.
What he does next surprised me. He gives a long critical assessment of each of these options. He doesn’t believe in reworking Christianity through a new biblical theory. He believes that the Bible as it currently stands holds all the truth and doctrine to be ecologically minded- if not in word, the in the spirit of the word. In responding to process theology he is upset with those people that would like to have God be subject to natural laws in such a way that He is not omnipotent. Derr believes, and I agree, that one does not have to compromise God’s transcendence and omnipotence to have an ecologically friendly Creator. In response to those that would have us return to the mystification of nature i.e. give up technology and live in the dark ages etc. Derr almost seems to laugh, as this is highly unlikely and not even truly desirable. Derr supports this argument with the central idea that it is in human nature to be free of what he calls “natural tyranny.” Meaning, that part of man’s nature and divine responsibility is to have dominion over the earth and subdue it- now this doesn’t mean to abuse it. He essentially believes that to try to revert back to the Dark Ages would be denying our own nature- one of progression, and I agree.
The second half of the book is devoted towards a possible solution. Derr analyzes ownership, resources, and politics in turn through the lens of a Christian ecologist. Ownership is a divine Christian right (as it was in the Garden of Eden that Adam was given dominion over the whole earth). Ownership is not a bad thing, but abuse is. Derr argues that it is good for people to have stewardship over land and the earth because these things teach us responsibility and spiritual truth. He cautions however that dominion is not domination and that ownership means ethical and moral responsibility to the future generations. Our responsibility to the future is viewed in units of resources in this book. We cannot predict the temperament of the future, but we can insure that they have access to the same things that we have. Derr argues that this responsibility to others alone should be reason enough to be ecologically minded as the Bible states that we have a responsibility to our fellow man. This responsibility inevitably leads to politics. Derr realizes that there is a certain practicality that must be addressed in the realm of politics. He talks about poor and underdeveloped nations. These nations will not halt progress simply because we cannot effectively manage our resources. Derr offers a better solution.
Derr asks something that is a relatively simple concept, though perhaps not simple to apply on a large scale. He notes that national wellbeing is currently measured by GDP per capita. He argues that perhaps what we need to do is change our thinking to a standard or quality of life per capita idea. In this way, people are seeking a lifestyle and not merely chasing a dollar. I agree that this is a better way to view life, though it would be hard to convince Americans that a comfortable quality of life may be less than they now experience.
Up until this point in the book I felt really good about Derr’s ideas. It is on the next point that I disagree. Derr puts forth ideas on how to manage population growth- stating that it is our responsibility to curb human populations. He puts forth relatively Christian approaches to the problem, and thinks that we should look at the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth as completed. As a Latter-day Saint, I cannot condone this opinion though I agree that family size is a matter to be determined between husband, wife, and the Lord.
All in all, the book was great. The only thing I would have liked would be some input form other religious stances- but the book was meant to be a Christian perspective alone. I also think that the data could be updated, but that is what I get for reading a 1970’s novel. The truth that really struck me was this: if these things were of dire importance 36 years ago, how much more imperative that we take up the cause today because we haven’t done much better, if any, since 1973.
(I read this book all the way through)
Life is a Miracle: True that!
I read the book ”Life is a Miracle—An Essay Against Modern Superstition” by Wendell Berry. First off I have to confess that I actually enjoyed this book. Initially I thought that I would just storm through this book just to get it over with, but it was quite the opposite. There was many thought provoking moments. Perhaps the reason I liked the book is because Wendell Baker is not a scientist. From the pages of the book I learned that he is a rural farmer guy, with strong ties to agriculture and the environment, and has his M.A. in English. Throughout the entire book he was very humble in admitting that he is not a scientist and doesn’t claim to have a perfect understanding of the world. But, that which he does know is in perspective—or in other words, he realizes that his understanding is foolishness in comparison to God’s knowledge. With that in mind he effectively explains how our culture has being deceived to think that the world is a perfect science that will eventually be understood in its fullness through scientific hypothesis testing.
Throughout the whole book Dr. Berry harps on the author Edward O. Wilson and his book, Consilience. Berry accuses Wilson of materialism, imperialism, reductionism, and more. I could go on forever on the many thoughts and applications that rushed through my mind while I was reading. But, I would like to focus my writing on one topic—Life is a miracle. Berry eloquently explained how our society of science, and reasoning has led many to believe that the Earth and the Universe are calculated objects. Berry uses the word machines. The world is viewed as a machine and can be predictable just as we can predict 100% of the time what car will leave a GM assembly line. Berry strongly disagrees. He feels that life is not predictable. We have agency and are influenced by thoughts, feelings, and faith. Wilson might argue that it is more secular than that. Or, that science can explain every phenomenon in nature, or at least has the potential of discovering all of the answers. I agree with Berry in that this life and this world in which we live are not predictable machines. I believe that there are imperative aspects of life such as moral agency, love, miracles, mystery, and a loving Heavenly Father that make this life somewhat unpredictable for the mortal mind to fathom. Nature has its patterns, but there is always facets of the environment that perplex the mind and baffle the “genius” of scientists. More particularly, the very science of salvation, will never be understood by the mortal mind. Wilson, in all of his learning and machinist thinking may be led to disbelieve in miracles, God, and salvation because there is no place for such things; man will eventually figure them out for himself. Wilson is forgetting one huge principle of nature: there is matter and element that he has not even though of—Spirit.
As Latter-Day Saints we believe that Spirit is matter, but more pure and fine than even the Periodic Table of Elements can distinguish. God operates by law, and does not walk in crooked paths to bring about his work of salvation. I guess you could say that God is the Master Scientist or Supreme Physicist. He did not change water in to wine through magic. He did not part the Red Sea through mysticism. He did not heal Namaan’s leprosy through voo-doo. God did not create the Earth and Heaven by pixy dust. It’s true that there is a celestial science to all of these marvelous wonders, but it is false to think that mortal man with all of his learning will ever discover such a science. These powers can only be handled and understood by virtue of the priesthood. Wilson is correct in thinking that life is a science, but he is horrifically wrong if he thinks that man will discover everything about the planet through man’s device.
I love what Wendell Berry says about the amazing nature of our earthly probation: “To treat life as less than a miracle is to give up in it” (Berry 10). How true is that? He is probably not even a member of the Church and yet he came to that profound truth (not to say that only members of our Church can discover such gems of truth). But yes, as soon as we reduce this life to its elements and functioning parts, we misunderstand it as a whole. This life is life is like the human body: if we were to dissect every organ, tissue, and cell and find out what each one does, we would never be able to predict what that human would be able to do. We have to take into account the spirit, which runs through our body, and our mind and the agency by which we CHOOSE to do things. Then we must believe in miracles. Life is a miracle. Likewise, nature is a miracle. As soon as we realize that nature and the environment are miracles, then we will treat them preciously. Berry understands this, and therefore has treated nature with respect, and has continued a five generation span of farmers in his family that have gleaned tons from nature without taking its virtue.
(I read this whole book)
Throughout the whole book Dr. Berry harps on the author Edward O. Wilson and his book, Consilience. Berry accuses Wilson of materialism, imperialism, reductionism, and more. I could go on forever on the many thoughts and applications that rushed through my mind while I was reading. But, I would like to focus my writing on one topic—Life is a miracle. Berry eloquently explained how our society of science, and reasoning has led many to believe that the Earth and the Universe are calculated objects. Berry uses the word machines. The world is viewed as a machine and can be predictable just as we can predict 100% of the time what car will leave a GM assembly line. Berry strongly disagrees. He feels that life is not predictable. We have agency and are influenced by thoughts, feelings, and faith. Wilson might argue that it is more secular than that. Or, that science can explain every phenomenon in nature, or at least has the potential of discovering all of the answers. I agree with Berry in that this life and this world in which we live are not predictable machines. I believe that there are imperative aspects of life such as moral agency, love, miracles, mystery, and a loving Heavenly Father that make this life somewhat unpredictable for the mortal mind to fathom. Nature has its patterns, but there is always facets of the environment that perplex the mind and baffle the “genius” of scientists. More particularly, the very science of salvation, will never be understood by the mortal mind. Wilson, in all of his learning and machinist thinking may be led to disbelieve in miracles, God, and salvation because there is no place for such things; man will eventually figure them out for himself. Wilson is forgetting one huge principle of nature: there is matter and element that he has not even though of—Spirit.
As Latter-Day Saints we believe that Spirit is matter, but more pure and fine than even the Periodic Table of Elements can distinguish. God operates by law, and does not walk in crooked paths to bring about his work of salvation. I guess you could say that God is the Master Scientist or Supreme Physicist. He did not change water in to wine through magic. He did not part the Red Sea through mysticism. He did not heal Namaan’s leprosy through voo-doo. God did not create the Earth and Heaven by pixy dust. It’s true that there is a celestial science to all of these marvelous wonders, but it is false to think that mortal man with all of his learning will ever discover such a science. These powers can only be handled and understood by virtue of the priesthood. Wilson is correct in thinking that life is a science, but he is horrifically wrong if he thinks that man will discover everything about the planet through man’s device.
I love what Wendell Berry says about the amazing nature of our earthly probation: “To treat life as less than a miracle is to give up in it” (Berry 10). How true is that? He is probably not even a member of the Church and yet he came to that profound truth (not to say that only members of our Church can discover such gems of truth). But yes, as soon as we reduce this life to its elements and functioning parts, we misunderstand it as a whole. This life is life is like the human body: if we were to dissect every organ, tissue, and cell and find out what each one does, we would never be able to predict what that human would be able to do. We have to take into account the spirit, which runs through our body, and our mind and the agency by which we CHOOSE to do things. Then we must believe in miracles. Life is a miracle. Likewise, nature is a miracle. As soon as we realize that nature and the environment are miracles, then we will treat them preciously. Berry understands this, and therefore has treated nature with respect, and has continued a five generation span of farmers in his family that have gleaned tons from nature without taking its virtue.
(I read this whole book)
Adaptation
My ancestors moved to St. George in the 1860’s under direction from Brigham Young to grow cotton for clothing and grapes for sacramental wine. For years after arriving in St. George my family struggled to raise crops and make the land prosperous. Having come directly from central Europe, they had poor understanding of the land and their environment. Vestiges of this poor understanding are still evident today. Many of the oldest homes in St. George still boast alpine-style architecture with very steep roofs. Needless to say, there isn’t need for steep roofs in southern Utah since they receive very little snow.
Sub-par understanding of the land made it very difficult for the new settlers to farm successfully, and it took my family six years to grow any food. My great, great, great grandfather’s journal says that he and his family “survived for a very long time eating nothing but pigweeds.” They finally abandoned the plan to grow cotton and grapes in their harsh surroundings, and grew crops more suited to their environment.
We are not so different from the early settlers of St. George. My generation spends less time out of doors than generations past. When we do venture into nature, we find ourselves as foreign and uneducated as the early St. George farmers. I fear that we will make the same mistake in trying to bend our surroundings to our will, and the consequences will be many seasons of eating nothing but pigweeds, metaphorically speaking.
I propose an idea that may help us to avoid such a nutritionally bland future.
We ought to remember that no matter how much we will it, the environment will not adapt to us. We must adapt to our environment.
As Americans, we have an English tradition ingrained in our culture. Consider England’s love of gardens and flowers. They are an island nation and seldom lack water to make their gardens flourish. In America, we insist on having grass lawns around our homes. It gives us a sense of live and beauty. But America, unlike Great Britain, is not an island nation. Here in Utah, we frequently experience sustained droughts. Would it not be wiser to look for beauty in the natural landscape rather than drain millions of gallons of water annually to prevent our lawns from turning yellow? Let us adapt to our surroundings, and in so doing we will benefit both ourselves and the environment.
Jared Diamond writes in his book Collapse of two cultures with very different outcomes living in the same place. The Norse Greenlanders and Native American Inuit inhabited the frozen lands of Greenland for over a century. The Native Americans had lived there for centuries and thrived in the seemingly desolate environment. Using kayaks and harpoons, they successfully hunted whales and they were able to raise suitable livestock. The Norse, on the other hand, insisted on retaining their Scandinavian traditions. Rather than raise goats, they raised cattle because cattle were a status symbol in Scandinavia. Rather than use kayaks to hunt whales, they tried to farm wheat. Eventually the Norse starved, while the Inuit continued to flourish.
Which culture will we choose to be?
Sub-par understanding of the land made it very difficult for the new settlers to farm successfully, and it took my family six years to grow any food. My great, great, great grandfather’s journal says that he and his family “survived for a very long time eating nothing but pigweeds.” They finally abandoned the plan to grow cotton and grapes in their harsh surroundings, and grew crops more suited to their environment.
We are not so different from the early settlers of St. George. My generation spends less time out of doors than generations past. When we do venture into nature, we find ourselves as foreign and uneducated as the early St. George farmers. I fear that we will make the same mistake in trying to bend our surroundings to our will, and the consequences will be many seasons of eating nothing but pigweeds, metaphorically speaking.
I propose an idea that may help us to avoid such a nutritionally bland future.
We ought to remember that no matter how much we will it, the environment will not adapt to us. We must adapt to our environment.
As Americans, we have an English tradition ingrained in our culture. Consider England’s love of gardens and flowers. They are an island nation and seldom lack water to make their gardens flourish. In America, we insist on having grass lawns around our homes. It gives us a sense of live and beauty. But America, unlike Great Britain, is not an island nation. Here in Utah, we frequently experience sustained droughts. Would it not be wiser to look for beauty in the natural landscape rather than drain millions of gallons of water annually to prevent our lawns from turning yellow? Let us adapt to our surroundings, and in so doing we will benefit both ourselves and the environment.
Jared Diamond writes in his book Collapse of two cultures with very different outcomes living in the same place. The Norse Greenlanders and Native American Inuit inhabited the frozen lands of Greenland for over a century. The Native Americans had lived there for centuries and thrived in the seemingly desolate environment. Using kayaks and harpoons, they successfully hunted whales and they were able to raise suitable livestock. The Norse, on the other hand, insisted on retaining their Scandinavian traditions. Rather than raise goats, they raised cattle because cattle were a status symbol in Scandinavia. Rather than use kayaks to hunt whales, they tried to farm wheat. Eventually the Norse starved, while the Inuit continued to flourish.
Which culture will we choose to be?
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
THE TEN TRUSTS
I had the opportunity to read THE TEN TRUSTS by Jane Goodall and co-author Marc Bekoff. A little about the authors, Jane Goodall is an animal lover, researcher, caretaker, and activist. She is most well known for her work with chimpanzees of central Africa. Her co-author is also a much respected scientist from the University of Boulder, Colorado. They have been friends for over two decades and continue working together today.
The purpose of this book is to illustrate the ever-growing need for modern society not only to protect the animal life on our planet, but to value them to us as well. Jane and Marc are concerned with the problems in the world today: overpopulation, pollution, erosion, global warming, deforestation, etc. the authors sat down and made a list of what they can do to help preserve and care for the multitude of species struggling to survive in our modern world.
The Ten Trusts I believe can be referred to as the “Ten Commandments” of animal life conservation. Each trust is thoroughly covered and explored in the book and entrances the reader with scientific data and real life experiences by both individuals. The Ten Trusts are:
Rejoice that we are part of the animal kingdom.
Respect all life.
Open our minds to animals and learn from them. Teach our children to respect and love nature.
Be wise stewards.
Value and help preserve the sounds of nature.
Refrain from harming life in order to learn from it.
Have the courage of our convictions.
Praise and those who work for animals and the natural world
Act knowing we are not alone and life with hope.
Ms. Goodall and Dr. Bekoff utilize a passive warm and friendly approach to discuss each trust. As you read the experiences depicted in the book, it guides and encourages you to think of the importance of conservation of nature and animal life. Each author uses personal experiences that make you feel involved. Jane and Marc tell of experiences in Africa, Europe, and the Far East and the US which are very detailed and paint beautiful and sometime very graphic images in the mind of the reader.
The format of the book is interesting. Jane’s writing appears in standard type while Marc’s portions are interspersed in italics. I was pleased with the transitions that connected the sections. As I mentioned above the scientific research included makes the reading meaningful and enriches the text. The detailed examples used telling the reader about chimp behaviors and the similarities that are shared with humans really makes the reader think about what is happening in the world.
I will admit that I waited to the last possible minute to start searching for a book for the book review. I was fortunate to find Jane and Marc’s book The Ten Trusts. It was a coincidence that some of our reading for Monday lecture was on some of the ten trusts. I was able to finish the book in 10 hours and am very happy that I choose the book I did. As I ponder on how this simple book has changed my perception of animal conservation and how I as one individual can contribute to conservation, I feel empowered. The book does an excellent job at showing how individuals can make a difference on many different levels. One example was Marc Bekoff, a professor at the University of Boulder, Colorado, he fought against the university to change the practices used at the university medical school on animals dissection and animals testing. The courage it must have taken to go against your employer shows the dedication that Marc has in regards to animals equality. Something interesting about the book that caught me off guard is that both authors are not against the using of animals for scientific research, which I viewed as a strength for their argument. Their message is that if institutions use animals for research, the animals need to be very well taken care of. I agree whole heartedly with that position. I have come to realize that I can make a better effort in helping animal conservation and habitat conservation by teaching my son to appreciate nature. I believe that my parents did a great job teaching me about nature and the least that I can do is teach my son to appreciate that he is part of the animals kingdom as stated in trust one.
The book also did a good job in showing the cruelties that our animal brothers endure for the betterment of the human race. We owe a lot of gratitude to research animals because they are the ones that have sacrificed their bodies so that we as humans can lead a more productive life. The book also tells of individuals that have benefited from animals research and have now established sanctuaries for animals used in research.
Overall I am grateful to have read this book. It has opened my heart and eyes to the cause of animal conservation.
I have read the book all the way through!
The purpose of this book is to illustrate the ever-growing need for modern society not only to protect the animal life on our planet, but to value them to us as well. Jane and Marc are concerned with the problems in the world today: overpopulation, pollution, erosion, global warming, deforestation, etc. the authors sat down and made a list of what they can do to help preserve and care for the multitude of species struggling to survive in our modern world.
The Ten Trusts I believe can be referred to as the “Ten Commandments” of animal life conservation. Each trust is thoroughly covered and explored in the book and entrances the reader with scientific data and real life experiences by both individuals. The Ten Trusts are:
Rejoice that we are part of the animal kingdom.
Respect all life.
Open our minds to animals and learn from them. Teach our children to respect and love nature.
Be wise stewards.
Value and help preserve the sounds of nature.
Refrain from harming life in order to learn from it.
Have the courage of our convictions.
Praise and those who work for animals and the natural world
Act knowing we are not alone and life with hope.
Ms. Goodall and Dr. Bekoff utilize a passive warm and friendly approach to discuss each trust. As you read the experiences depicted in the book, it guides and encourages you to think of the importance of conservation of nature and animal life. Each author uses personal experiences that make you feel involved. Jane and Marc tell of experiences in Africa, Europe, and the Far East and the US which are very detailed and paint beautiful and sometime very graphic images in the mind of the reader.
The format of the book is interesting. Jane’s writing appears in standard type while Marc’s portions are interspersed in italics. I was pleased with the transitions that connected the sections. As I mentioned above the scientific research included makes the reading meaningful and enriches the text. The detailed examples used telling the reader about chimp behaviors and the similarities that are shared with humans really makes the reader think about what is happening in the world.
I will admit that I waited to the last possible minute to start searching for a book for the book review. I was fortunate to find Jane and Marc’s book The Ten Trusts. It was a coincidence that some of our reading for Monday lecture was on some of the ten trusts. I was able to finish the book in 10 hours and am very happy that I choose the book I did. As I ponder on how this simple book has changed my perception of animal conservation and how I as one individual can contribute to conservation, I feel empowered. The book does an excellent job at showing how individuals can make a difference on many different levels. One example was Marc Bekoff, a professor at the University of Boulder, Colorado, he fought against the university to change the practices used at the university medical school on animals dissection and animals testing. The courage it must have taken to go against your employer shows the dedication that Marc has in regards to animals equality. Something interesting about the book that caught me off guard is that both authors are not against the using of animals for scientific research, which I viewed as a strength for their argument. Their message is that if institutions use animals for research, the animals need to be very well taken care of. I agree whole heartedly with that position. I have come to realize that I can make a better effort in helping animal conservation and habitat conservation by teaching my son to appreciate nature. I believe that my parents did a great job teaching me about nature and the least that I can do is teach my son to appreciate that he is part of the animals kingdom as stated in trust one.
The book also did a good job in showing the cruelties that our animal brothers endure for the betterment of the human race. We owe a lot of gratitude to research animals because they are the ones that have sacrificed their bodies so that we as humans can lead a more productive life. The book also tells of individuals that have benefited from animals research and have now established sanctuaries for animals used in research.
Overall I am grateful to have read this book. It has opened my heart and eyes to the cause of animal conservation.
I have read the book all the way through!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Earth Might Be Fair
Earth Might be Fair is a series of articles that were compiled and edited by Ian G. Barbour. It was published in 1972. The topics of science, theology, how the human race views the earth, and population were discussed in an ecological light.
I found the principles of the publication to be sound. It was enlightening to see how the Christian faith was viewed in the environmental world. There are some who assert that Christianity should bear the blame of our current environmental condition, while others assert that it is the answer. No matter what the author’s respective view on Christianity (or other religions) was though, they all agreed on one thing; what had to change was how people viewed the earth, and they knew that the best way to do that was through the faith of the people.
Technology was discussed at length. An important distinction was made between technology and science. Technology for example is the computer that I’m typing this on, while science is the study that made the creation of the computer possible. Technology and science walk hand in hand, but they are not one and the same. I found this view to be refreshing as well as informative, and the various authors in Earth Might be Fair, agreed that society should focus on producing technologies that improve (or don’t harm) the environment rather than addressing the harmful effects of technology. This method wouldn’t only reduce the amount of harm to our environment, but encourage a wiser use of resources (government funding, research, etc).
How the human race views the earth was the main issue of the book. Whether it be that man should view himself in light of a genetic ancestry that tied him to all species, the miracle that man has even come into being, the miracle of the creation of the earth, or how estrangement from nature by objectifying it has led man to degrade the world he lives on. All these combined to try and instill in man a feeling of not only connectedness to the world around him (plants, resources, animals), but of blessing, and through that blessing an obligation to be responsible for the world around him.
I believe that the underlying principle of the book was not to present facts, but to change minds. From the introduction to the conclusion and throughout every article the authors presented information in an effort to get people to change the way that they saw and perceived the world around them. Some authors used logic, other religious appeal, and still others made an appeal to people’s fear.
The religious and fear appeals were used the most often, perhaps because it is a person’s sense of the spiritual, and a person’s life that is most valued. However, a blunt appeal to fear isn’t constructive. When an argument seeks to make a reader insecure, thought processes aren’t changed only diverted for a few moments in time while the reader is engaged in reading. An appeal to one’s religion calls on a reader’s sense of moral obligation – something they have chosen in their lives. By reasoning with this aspect of a person lasting change can be made.
I agree that technology needs to be encouraged to be more responsible, I agree that religion when really understood encourages mankind to take care of the earth, I agree that for any significant environmental change to be made people who consume too much (though that remains to be defined), should consume less (and recycle more). Out of all the things I agree with in this book, I cannot bring myself to agree with its views on population. Proposals in the book to “control population” were appalling; the “solutions” ranged from sterilizing 10 year old girls (and mothers of 2 - as a matter of law), to having the government decide which couples would be allowed to produce offspring. I respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do not believe that anyone is entitled to saying what human life is really worth bringing into the world.
In conclusion the book has a lot to offer. I think that it is an example of why people are often so ardently against environmentalism as well though. The ideas presented are as a whole sound and good, but their presentation is sometimes over enthusiastic, or abrasive. To accomplish what this book is trying to do (change the thoughts and attitude of people in order to change people’s actions) a more moderate approach is needed.
I read this book all the way through.
I found the principles of the publication to be sound. It was enlightening to see how the Christian faith was viewed in the environmental world. There are some who assert that Christianity should bear the blame of our current environmental condition, while others assert that it is the answer. No matter what the author’s respective view on Christianity (or other religions) was though, they all agreed on one thing; what had to change was how people viewed the earth, and they knew that the best way to do that was through the faith of the people.
Technology was discussed at length. An important distinction was made between technology and science. Technology for example is the computer that I’m typing this on, while science is the study that made the creation of the computer possible. Technology and science walk hand in hand, but they are not one and the same. I found this view to be refreshing as well as informative, and the various authors in Earth Might be Fair, agreed that society should focus on producing technologies that improve (or don’t harm) the environment rather than addressing the harmful effects of technology. This method wouldn’t only reduce the amount of harm to our environment, but encourage a wiser use of resources (government funding, research, etc).
How the human race views the earth was the main issue of the book. Whether it be that man should view himself in light of a genetic ancestry that tied him to all species, the miracle that man has even come into being, the miracle of the creation of the earth, or how estrangement from nature by objectifying it has led man to degrade the world he lives on. All these combined to try and instill in man a feeling of not only connectedness to the world around him (plants, resources, animals), but of blessing, and through that blessing an obligation to be responsible for the world around him.
I believe that the underlying principle of the book was not to present facts, but to change minds. From the introduction to the conclusion and throughout every article the authors presented information in an effort to get people to change the way that they saw and perceived the world around them. Some authors used logic, other religious appeal, and still others made an appeal to people’s fear.
The religious and fear appeals were used the most often, perhaps because it is a person’s sense of the spiritual, and a person’s life that is most valued. However, a blunt appeal to fear isn’t constructive. When an argument seeks to make a reader insecure, thought processes aren’t changed only diverted for a few moments in time while the reader is engaged in reading. An appeal to one’s religion calls on a reader’s sense of moral obligation – something they have chosen in their lives. By reasoning with this aspect of a person lasting change can be made.
I agree that technology needs to be encouraged to be more responsible, I agree that religion when really understood encourages mankind to take care of the earth, I agree that for any significant environmental change to be made people who consume too much (though that remains to be defined), should consume less (and recycle more). Out of all the things I agree with in this book, I cannot bring myself to agree with its views on population. Proposals in the book to “control population” were appalling; the “solutions” ranged from sterilizing 10 year old girls (and mothers of 2 - as a matter of law), to having the government decide which couples would be allowed to produce offspring. I respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do not believe that anyone is entitled to saying what human life is really worth bringing into the world.
In conclusion the book has a lot to offer. I think that it is an example of why people are often so ardently against environmentalism as well though. The ideas presented are as a whole sound and good, but their presentation is sometimes over enthusiastic, or abrasive. To accomplish what this book is trying to do (change the thoughts and attitude of people in order to change people’s actions) a more moderate approach is needed.
I read this book all the way through.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Saving the Rain Forest
I read the book Nafanua Saving the Somoan Rain Forest by Paul Cox. Paul Cox is LDS and I don’t know if he is currently at BYU but he taught here while he was writing the book. This book was a narrative of his experiences while he was on sabbatical in Samoa. I was expecting the book to be more peer reviewed type articles but it seemed more like the author was writing in his journal about his daily activities and by the time he got home realized that he could easily just write a book from his journal entries. This made the book very easy to read because it flowed with his daily activities.
His initial intent for being in Samoa was to study the plants chemical natures and see if there was anything that could be made into drugs to prevent diseases. He took his whole family to Samoa for the year and although he could speak the language because he had previously served a mission in Samoa, his family didn’t know the language and customs and tried to assimilate themselves the best that they could. The family eventually was accepted into the community as members and they increasingly became more and more aware of the problems that faced the people of this island.
As they became more and more involved Paul Cox realized that he had a opportunity to save their rain forest that was going to be sold and chopped down by loggers so the small community could afford to build a new school for their children. He raised money and involved many people stateside in order to prevent the forest from being destroyed. He constantly is struggling to bridge the gap between the Samoan people and the international viewpoints of Samoa and their need for aid.
Some of the impressions that I got from the book is that there are a lot of people who desperately need help but they just don’t know who or where to turn to. These people had to come up with about $60,000 to build a new school. They didn’t have anywhere near the resources and the only way that they knew how was to sell the rain forest to loggers. They cherished the rain forest and in the past had done everything in their power to preserve it but they also knew that the education of their children was the only way to ensure their future. They felt that they had no choice. Paul Cox was able to help them in ways that they would have never imagined.
Another impression that I got was that one person can do a lot when they put their mind to it. Paul Cox had wavered on his decision to help with the rainforest because initially he wasn’t sure if he could raise the money necessary or not and he wasn’t sure if he was willing to lose all of his personal assets to save this rain forest. There was a point that he decided that enough was enough and he was going to do everything in his power even if it meant that he would sell his house in Provo and other things to finance the school in Samoa. It just shows that he felt that he could make a difference and he may not get another chance to make an impact like he did again in his lifetime. He seized the moment and ran with it and hard as he could. Honestly I don’t think that I could make a decision like that and put so much on the line like he did but I guess the morale of the story is find something that drives you and ride it out to the fullest.
Although I do not share Paul Cox’s same passion about saving the rain forests and will probably never involve myself the same way that he did with the village in Samoa, I can prepare myself to be able to act quickly and authoritatively when opportunities present themselves. By positioning myself so that I can be of help in the future, opportunities will present themselves that may have not opened up otherwise.
(I read this book all the way through)
Friday, March 27, 2009
Commonality among the Religions
Sorry for having to write my blog as a comment. Blogger.com does not like my MAC!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Collapse Book Review
Collapse discusses different civilization’s ecological impacts on their environments and the overall consequences of a people’s attitude toward the environment.
He writes first of societies that did not respect or understand their surroundings, and as a consequence became extinct. Perhaps the most interesting story Diamond tells is that of the people of
Of course, construction on such a large scale took its toll on the island’s resources. Trees, which were necessary for transporting and erecting the moai, were extremely valuable to the islanders for construction purposes. But they also prevented the soil from eroding into the ocean and decreased leaching of necessary elements. A chain reaction was initiated, and soon the people had inflicted such damage on their surroundings, that the island has no longer habitable. Animals decreased in population and diversity. Plants and marine life followed suit, leaving the islanders with a fraction of the resources they once enjoyed. Hundreds of years later, European ships happened on the tiny island and found a desolate place, with a population much smaller than had inhabited the island hundreds of years earlier.
Diamond portrays
The second, more positive, section of the book tells about societies that understood their environments, and thrived as a result. Diamond offers the story of another island, Japan. The Tokugawa Shoguns of Japan recognized that the population could very easily decimate the forests of Japan, and they took action to prevent deforestation. By creating a “tree census”, they were able to determine which forests were in danger of being destroyed. The government worked with local towns and leaders to ensure that they understood from where they could harvest wood and how much could be used. Their system was successful, and Japan continues to enjoy their forests.
I think the author was clever to use two examples, both island nations that harvested trees, to show that we can use the earth’s resources without destroying our environment. We simply need observe the problems we are causing, and correct them to avoid inflicting more damage. The book is an excellent read and includes many fascinating stories to support Diamond’s viewpoints.
In Collapse, Diamond addresses the viewpoint that technology will solve all of our environmental problems. Some people are of the opinion that whether or not we decide to ignore environmental issues, technology will eventually solve them for us. Diamond answers simply that new technology often creates more problems than it solves. Relying on technology to solve all of our problems is not a viable solution. Further, he argues that the purpose of technology is to increase our ability to do things, quantitatively not qualitatively. So if technology is going to be part of the solution, we need to adjust our outlook on the environment now, so when the technology is available we understand how to use it to help solve our problems.
Most people that I discuss environmental issues with feel that technology will play a large role in solving problems. But we already have so much technology that we do not take advantage of, so how will more technology help? By simply recycling we become a part of the solution, but not everyone chooses to recycle. We need to stop focusing on the marvelous technology we hope for, and address the problems in the present.
I certainly hope, along with Jared Diamond, that we can do so before another Collapse!
(I read the entire book)
Monday, March 23, 2009
What goes around, comes around
One of my goals in taking this class was to understand more about world religions. Aside from various sects of Christianity, I have very little knowledge of other religions. It is for this reason that our discussion of Buddhism struck me. We talked in particular about three different aspects of Buddhism: Balance, Karma, and Rebirth.
From our lecture, I gathered that one of the main goals of Buddhism was to achieve balance and attain the most perfected state of balance entitled nirvana. Through following the Eightfold Path of Buddhism, one lives in a right way to achieve good Karma, eventually escape the cycle of birth and rebirth and become an “Awakened one” like Buddah. The eightfold view includes following the following aspects:
1. Right view of the world
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right practice
I loved the Buddhist readings that we were required to do for class. I was particularly intrigued with the processes of rebirth. According to Wikipedia (Yes, I know it’s extremely legitimate), “Rebirth refers to a process whereby beings go through a succession of lifetimes as one of many possible forms of sentient life, each running from conception to death. It is important to note, however, that Buddhism rejects concepts of a permanent self or an unchanging, eternal soul.” I was impressed with this explanation because I always understood reincarnation or rebirth to be just one soul moving from one life form to another. This, however, is not the case. While my understanding is probably still a little juvenile, being that I’m just learning about Buddhism, the process of rebirth is not so much jumping from one life form to another, but rather a progressive state of being that is based on karma. Living right allows one to receive positive Karma “points”.
I thought it was really interesting thinking of the progression or regression of rebirth in terms of Karma. It is analogous to each of our progressions in this life. If we look at our spirituality in Buddhist terms, some of us may be on the level of a mouse or lizard whereas others may be steps away from attaining nirvana. Just as those who disrespect the eightfold missions of Buddhism and do not live the right life may receive negative karma points and be rebirthed at a lower state than they previously were, so are we negatively affected when we sin or treat others poorly. We may not be reborn as a horse or cow, but we certainly take a few steps away from the Savior and our goal of becoming like Him.
To me, one of the coolest things about other religions is learning the truths that they have, and being able to use their various doctrines towards the betterment of our individual lives. I believe that in the same way Buddhists use karma to progress towards nirvana, so do we as Latter-Day Saints use charity, service, and sacrifice to perfect us and enable us to one day achieve our ultimate goal, which is to live with our Father in Heaven once more. When viewed in this way, any religion can offer us edification , light and truth.
From our lecture, I gathered that one of the main goals of Buddhism was to achieve balance and attain the most perfected state of balance entitled nirvana. Through following the Eightfold Path of Buddhism, one lives in a right way to achieve good Karma, eventually escape the cycle of birth and rebirth and become an “Awakened one” like Buddah. The eightfold view includes following the following aspects:
1. Right view of the world
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right practice
I loved the Buddhist readings that we were required to do for class. I was particularly intrigued with the processes of rebirth. According to Wikipedia (Yes, I know it’s extremely legitimate), “Rebirth refers to a process whereby beings go through a succession of lifetimes as one of many possible forms of sentient life, each running from conception to death. It is important to note, however, that Buddhism rejects concepts of a permanent self or an unchanging, eternal soul.” I was impressed with this explanation because I always understood reincarnation or rebirth to be just one soul moving from one life form to another. This, however, is not the case. While my understanding is probably still a little juvenile, being that I’m just learning about Buddhism, the process of rebirth is not so much jumping from one life form to another, but rather a progressive state of being that is based on karma. Living right allows one to receive positive Karma “points”.
I thought it was really interesting thinking of the progression or regression of rebirth in terms of Karma. It is analogous to each of our progressions in this life. If we look at our spirituality in Buddhist terms, some of us may be on the level of a mouse or lizard whereas others may be steps away from attaining nirvana. Just as those who disrespect the eightfold missions of Buddhism and do not live the right life may receive negative karma points and be rebirthed at a lower state than they previously were, so are we negatively affected when we sin or treat others poorly. We may not be reborn as a horse or cow, but we certainly take a few steps away from the Savior and our goal of becoming like Him.
To me, one of the coolest things about other religions is learning the truths that they have, and being able to use their various doctrines towards the betterment of our individual lives. I believe that in the same way Buddhists use karma to progress towards nirvana, so do we as Latter-Day Saints use charity, service, and sacrifice to perfect us and enable us to one day achieve our ultimate goal, which is to live with our Father in Heaven once more. When viewed in this way, any religion can offer us edification , light and truth.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Heaven on Earth
When I was in middle school back in Ohio, I remember clearly one day riding in a car with my mother. I remember looking out of the window and seeing buildings, subdivisions and parking lots everywhere. I turned to my mom and asked her if there was enough room for everyone on the earth. To me it looked like eventually there would be no space left to build houses for future families because the land was literally covered with them already. Once all the space was used, what would we do? Looking back now I would even add in, “what about all of the plants and animals, will they have room?” My mother could tell I was worried, and so I believed tried to comfort me by telling me “God has promised that there will be enough and to spare.” For a while this was good enough for me, my mother had said so and she must be right, because she is my mother. However as I grow older I see more and more clearly the troubles of this world and I cannot rely on the government or those higher up than me to just magically make things better somehow. I used to think that there was very little that I could do and if I just gave it time, someone else would find the solution to life’s troubles. After all, someone else discovered penicillin, someone else tapped the use of electricity, figured out how to make an airplane and so on. Surely someone will find a way to save all the endangered species, eliminate pollution and waste, and stop the deforestation and desertification around the world. Yet we know (we have talked about it in past blog entries) that if we all just look around and wait for that someone to step up, it will never happen. Instead I would like to address perhaps why we feel this way. While I was young my mother did a good job comforting me, yet now I find her advice slightly unsettling. There are many very religious people in the world who seem to dismiss their human responsibilities and say that everything is safely “in God’s hands.” In fact, there are also many people that I know who don’t believe in a God, and that humans are simply an ‘evolutionary accident’ yet they seem more environmentally responsible because since they believe there is no God, then it is absolutely up to us to make things right. I believe that God helps those who help themselves. Does God have the power to wipe us all out and begin the custodial clean-up? Of course he does. But will he? No. We are here to learn and grow and try to be more like him. If we have the foresight and take the time an effort to try to correct our past mistakes, if we do this with his will in mind he will help us. I think we as Latter Day Saints know the importance of this world and need to remind ourselves that we should not just sit in church on Sunday and wait for the second coming so that we may be glorified and live with our Father in Heaven forever. This world will be our celestial kingdom and we need to take care of it now, and prove to God that we will be good stewards. I think the best way to start to make a change is to picture the Earth and everything in it as it will be when it reaches its paradisiacal glory. Then, just as we view our bodies as temples, we can begin to see the earth as a temple and treat it as such.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Lisa is all alone, again
During the Simpsons episode that we watched many things came to my mind. I have watched my fair share of Simpsons episodes and a common theme is that Lisa is usually the only one that ever cares about anything. She is constantly standing up for what she believes is right. Mostly because she is the only one that is educated enough to know about what is really going on in the world. Homer is the epitomy (sp?) of the uneducated population whose only concern is about instant gratification, and in the case of this episode, making a quick buck. Lisa constantly argues with facts and scientific data that are largely ignored by the people of Springfield because they don't understand it. Ignorance rarely acknowledges truth because the thought process of deciding what is right or wrong usually never occurs which breeds more ignorance.
Another point that I think the producers of this episode were also trying to show is that sometimes people get so excited about their viewpoints that they fail to see other possibilities. Lisa was so positive that what she had found was a fossil and was so sure that Homer was wrong that she failed to see the other possibilities. By opening up our viewpoints and trying to see what the other side sees we may find valid points to their arguments and maybe be able to apply some of their points into our own.
But I think that the main point of the episode is that after all is said and done it doesn't really matter who wins, it is the relationships that we build that matter. Time and time again Lisa rants and raves about this and about that in the Simpson episodes and is usually confronted with many who oppose her but at the end of the day both sides come to some agreement and compromise in order to keep intact the relationships that they have formed. Usually this occurs by the public obtaining more knowledge about the topic and acting accordingly.
Many of the episodes, at least from what I have seen, show that ignorance breeds ignorance, Homer - Bart, and that knowledge is power. They also show that an individual who portrays superior knowledge that flaunts it is also not helping the community. It is the careful balance of knowledge and using that knowledge for the better good that allows others to become better people. This is where our knowledge that we have acquired will do the most good. By understanding other viewpoints and incorporating truth many people will want to do better and start to care about things that may have not even been thought about it the past.
Another point that I think the producers of this episode were also trying to show is that sometimes people get so excited about their viewpoints that they fail to see other possibilities. Lisa was so positive that what she had found was a fossil and was so sure that Homer was wrong that she failed to see the other possibilities. By opening up our viewpoints and trying to see what the other side sees we may find valid points to their arguments and maybe be able to apply some of their points into our own.
But I think that the main point of the episode is that after all is said and done it doesn't really matter who wins, it is the relationships that we build that matter. Time and time again Lisa rants and raves about this and about that in the Simpson episodes and is usually confronted with many who oppose her but at the end of the day both sides come to some agreement and compromise in order to keep intact the relationships that they have formed. Usually this occurs by the public obtaining more knowledge about the topic and acting accordingly.
Many of the episodes, at least from what I have seen, show that ignorance breeds ignorance, Homer - Bart, and that knowledge is power. They also show that an individual who portrays superior knowledge that flaunts it is also not helping the community. It is the careful balance of knowledge and using that knowledge for the better good that allows others to become better people. This is where our knowledge that we have acquired will do the most good. By understanding other viewpoints and incorporating truth many people will want to do better and start to care about things that may have not even been thought about it the past.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Searching for Patterns
During Evolution Week, I attended a lecture by Dr. Whiting. I believe it was titled “Grandeur in this View of Life”, or something to that effect. Dr. Whiting gave a general overview of evolution and the reasoning behind it. He also talked of Darwin. He spoke of Darwin’s life experiences and how these affected his scientific views. It was a great summary of evolution and Darwin for the general population. But to be honest, I found Dr. Whiting’s talk to be somewhat boring. I am in his Biology 420 class this semester, so I had already heard most of his lecture within the beginning week of January. And other biology classes had already taught me the general principles of evolution.
However, there was one aspect of his lecture that really caused me to think and ponder. Dr. Whiting talked about the importance of patterns. He showed us a picture of his daugther’s creation of cookies and pudding. He described this creation as a pattern, and by studying the pattern, one could see how the cookies and pudding were manipulated. It was possible to tell that the cookies had come after the pudding, and that the little girl had created the pudding painting using mainly her fingers. Dr. Whiting described some of the patterns in evolution and demonstrated how these patterns point to the mechanisms of evolution. He stated that by finding patterns in nature, we can understand fundamental principles.
Dr. Whiting seemed to assert that patterns in nature will lead us to understanding the science behind nature. I also believe this is true. But it made me think of the people who created Topeki Gobli, or those who erected Stonehenge, or even the Kogi today. These people also saw patterns in nature. They saw the renewal of the earth every spring. They saw the equinoxes and the solstices. They saw constant death but also constant life. To explain these patterns, they turned to myths such as the Babylonian story of Adapa the fisherman who refused the gift of eternal life or the Greek myth of Persephone who oscillated between the underworld in the winter and living with her mother the goddess Demeter in the summer. So far as we know, these myths do not contain much scientific truth. But every culture has always found a need to explain the patterns of nature in some way.
Now I’m not trying to say that evolution is our myth today. I do believe that evolution is scientifically sound, and that it is God’s way of creating new life forms. But it does make me wonder about our need for explanation and understanding. We see patterns around us, and we feel a need to fit in, to become part of the pattern, to understand and to feel like we are more than an individual, that we are a part of a whole. I think that explaining the patterns found in daily life and in the environment was perhaps the main reason religion arose. The need to connect and to understand is deep-seated in each one of us, and has been a part of humanity perhaps since the beginning. I wonder why we feel this need, why we can’t just observe and recognize that there is “grandeur in this view of life”. I don’t think it’s wrong to try and understand patterns. I just think it’s interesting to see how much effort we put into explaining them.
However, there was one aspect of his lecture that really caused me to think and ponder. Dr. Whiting talked about the importance of patterns. He showed us a picture of his daugther’s creation of cookies and pudding. He described this creation as a pattern, and by studying the pattern, one could see how the cookies and pudding were manipulated. It was possible to tell that the cookies had come after the pudding, and that the little girl had created the pudding painting using mainly her fingers. Dr. Whiting described some of the patterns in evolution and demonstrated how these patterns point to the mechanisms of evolution. He stated that by finding patterns in nature, we can understand fundamental principles.
Dr. Whiting seemed to assert that patterns in nature will lead us to understanding the science behind nature. I also believe this is true. But it made me think of the people who created Topeki Gobli, or those who erected Stonehenge, or even the Kogi today. These people also saw patterns in nature. They saw the renewal of the earth every spring. They saw the equinoxes and the solstices. They saw constant death but also constant life. To explain these patterns, they turned to myths such as the Babylonian story of Adapa the fisherman who refused the gift of eternal life or the Greek myth of Persephone who oscillated between the underworld in the winter and living with her mother the goddess Demeter in the summer. So far as we know, these myths do not contain much scientific truth. But every culture has always found a need to explain the patterns of nature in some way.
Now I’m not trying to say that evolution is our myth today. I do believe that evolution is scientifically sound, and that it is God’s way of creating new life forms. But it does make me wonder about our need for explanation and understanding. We see patterns around us, and we feel a need to fit in, to become part of the pattern, to understand and to feel like we are more than an individual, that we are a part of a whole. I think that explaining the patterns found in daily life and in the environment was perhaps the main reason religion arose. The need to connect and to understand is deep-seated in each one of us, and has been a part of humanity perhaps since the beginning. I wonder why we feel this need, why we can’t just observe and recognize that there is “grandeur in this view of life”. I don’t think it’s wrong to try and understand patterns. I just think it’s interesting to see how much effort we put into explaining them.
Bringing it Home
I have always held a particular life view: hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I have recently spent more time thinking about my impact on the environment and how my religious convictions require that I be more proactive. We have discussed several issues on this blog ranging from Christian beliefs to Star Trek; however, we have yet to put forth any real life, everyday solutions. I don’t think that there is a magical solution or that the majority of people will wake up one day and decide to take better care of the earth. I personally believe that many people are unaware of what goes on around them. Not that they chose not to care, but they simply don’t think about it. My intentions therefore are to lay out realistic and effective ways that we can make a difference for our planet, as examples to others, and to fulfill our sacred stewardship.
There are two phrases that I have heard frequently throughout my life. The first is a saying I learned in the third grade: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The second I heard in Primary: Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without. Something simple we can all do is try to recycle. If you already do, great job and keep it up. If you don’t, then there is never a time like the present. You don’t even have to burn yourself out with recycling everything you ever use, start small with something like newspaper and cardboard boxes.
Another thing we can all do is try to be smarter consumers. Consuming goods in America is a just a fact of life. Whenever you buy a new appliance you can’t ask for one without all of the packaging. What we can do is buy the cereal that comes in a bag instead of a box and a bag, drink more water and spare the pop cans, and buy bulk instead of individually wrapped. You can also buy things second hand where possible- saving you packaging and money. When you go hunting, only hunt what you are willing to eat. When you drive a car, if you have the option, carpool or take the car that is better suited to individual travel- not the SUV etc.
Sooner or later most of us will buy a home. We can make that home a modest one, one that is suited to our needs more than our pride. With that house we can plant a garden and trees etc. These things will not only lessen our personal impact on our environment, but they will enable us to stay close to nature and to teach our children and loved ones to respect and cherish the source of our mortal nourishment and home.
There are so many things that we can do as individuals to create a better tomorrow today and a better future for everyone. I believe the key is to willingly sit down and decide what it is that you, as an individual person, need and want within reason. We then have to be both willing and able to make goals with our natural surroundings in mind. I honestly believe that is we think about it, it is really doable.
There are two phrases that I have heard frequently throughout my life. The first is a saying I learned in the third grade: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The second I heard in Primary: Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without. Something simple we can all do is try to recycle. If you already do, great job and keep it up. If you don’t, then there is never a time like the present. You don’t even have to burn yourself out with recycling everything you ever use, start small with something like newspaper and cardboard boxes.
Another thing we can all do is try to be smarter consumers. Consuming goods in America is a just a fact of life. Whenever you buy a new appliance you can’t ask for one without all of the packaging. What we can do is buy the cereal that comes in a bag instead of a box and a bag, drink more water and spare the pop cans, and buy bulk instead of individually wrapped. You can also buy things second hand where possible- saving you packaging and money. When you go hunting, only hunt what you are willing to eat. When you drive a car, if you have the option, carpool or take the car that is better suited to individual travel- not the SUV etc.
Sooner or later most of us will buy a home. We can make that home a modest one, one that is suited to our needs more than our pride. With that house we can plant a garden and trees etc. These things will not only lessen our personal impact on our environment, but they will enable us to stay close to nature and to teach our children and loved ones to respect and cherish the source of our mortal nourishment and home.
There are so many things that we can do as individuals to create a better tomorrow today and a better future for everyone. I believe the key is to willingly sit down and decide what it is that you, as an individual person, need and want within reason. We then have to be both willing and able to make goals with our natural surroundings in mind. I honestly believe that is we think about it, it is really doable.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Faces of Darwin
I am glad that the blog has gone back to the topic of evolution. I do not know if I should admit this but my blog is a little late. But late is better than never. A few weeks ago the campus along with millions world wide celebrated the publication of the book Origin of Species and Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday. I had the opportunity to attend several lectures presented by the Biology Department on the topic of evolution. Some lectures were even on religion and evolution. I did not attend those. I attended one Dr. Fairbanks entitled The Many Faces of Charles Darwin.
I had the opportunity at the beginning of Darwin week to hear Dr. Fairbanks speak at a lecture series presented by the Biology Department. Before he began to lecture Dr. Fairbanks presented a professor in attendance a beautiful drawing of Charles Darwin. I was very impressed with his artistic ability just from the drawing. I later found out after the lecture that Dr. Fairbanks was going to lecture during Darwin week and sculpt a clay bust of Darwin while he gave a lecture.
The lecture was very informal due to the Dr. Fairbanks sculpting Darwin as he spoke. I learned several things during the lecture that made me really ponder long after the lecture was over. First I have to say that I found it amazing that Dr. Fairbanks sculpted Darwin in one hour. I had front row seats and could not take my eyes off the sculpting for a second. In regards to what I take home from the lecture was the misunderstanding of Darwin and his contributions to biology. Charles Darwin made an observation and discovered a mechanism to describe his observations. He did not understand the complexities of genetics or molecular biology as we do today. It saddens me to read people really disrespect a man that did not like confrontation and was doing what most biologist hope to do in their life time which is be recognized in the field of their study. The lecture also made me ponder my views on evolution. To be honest I could careless how we evolved. I think that when it is all said and done everyone will know the truth and I hope that if Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct people will apologize to the man and tell him that he made a great contribution to human kind.
If God wanted us to know how the world was created and by what mechanism he would tell us. Gaining knowledge and understanding is part of his plan for us here on earth. I can help but think of the countless times that President Hinckley instructed us to attain as much education as possible. Our intelligence is the only thing that we as children of our heavenly father will be able to take with us when we enter the next part of life.
I had the opportunity at the beginning of Darwin week to hear Dr. Fairbanks speak at a lecture series presented by the Biology Department. Before he began to lecture Dr. Fairbanks presented a professor in attendance a beautiful drawing of Charles Darwin. I was very impressed with his artistic ability just from the drawing. I later found out after the lecture that Dr. Fairbanks was going to lecture during Darwin week and sculpt a clay bust of Darwin while he gave a lecture.
The lecture was very informal due to the Dr. Fairbanks sculpting Darwin as he spoke. I learned several things during the lecture that made me really ponder long after the lecture was over. First I have to say that I found it amazing that Dr. Fairbanks sculpted Darwin in one hour. I had front row seats and could not take my eyes off the sculpting for a second. In regards to what I take home from the lecture was the misunderstanding of Darwin and his contributions to biology. Charles Darwin made an observation and discovered a mechanism to describe his observations. He did not understand the complexities of genetics or molecular biology as we do today. It saddens me to read people really disrespect a man that did not like confrontation and was doing what most biologist hope to do in their life time which is be recognized in the field of their study. The lecture also made me ponder my views on evolution. To be honest I could careless how we evolved. I think that when it is all said and done everyone will know the truth and I hope that if Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct people will apologize to the man and tell him that he made a great contribution to human kind.
If God wanted us to know how the world was created and by what mechanism he would tell us. Gaining knowledge and understanding is part of his plan for us here on earth. I can help but think of the countless times that President Hinckley instructed us to attain as much education as possible. Our intelligence is the only thing that we as children of our heavenly father will be able to take with us when we enter the next part of life.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Evolution, Religion and the Environment
While serving a mission in southern Chile I often challenged people to ponder some of the deep questions of life: Where are you from? Where are you going? Often, the answer to those two questions helped seekers of truth to answer the more relevant question of what are we supposed to be doing in this life. I propose a parallel exercise to help us understand our religious and practical obligations to the planet and our environment.
Theodore Dobzhansky wrote in 1973 that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (American Biology Teacher, Volume 35, pages 125-129). Given Gallup Poll data asserting that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution as of February 2009, one must conclude that to 61% of Americans who do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, nothing in biology makes sense. That frightens me because biology (the study of life) and evolution give us a new and deeper understanding of the earth, and our relation ship to it and all things found on it.
Evolution teaches us that the planet is very old, and that the world’s history is our history. Most of us have a difficult time understanding how old the earth really is, but evolution helps us to gain more perspective. Although it appears that life formed on earth relatively quickly (a billion years or so after the formation of the planet), it takes millions of years and generations for time to become meaningful. Earth time is deep time. Our lifetimes are barely noticeable next to the lifespan of the earth. Becoming evo-literate brings our roles on the earth into perspective.
Evolution also teaches us about our intimate and necessary relationship with earth. Using genetic markers, scientists can now trace the human record across the globe, back to Africa where genetic diversity is the greatest. We can see similarities across species as well, not just within species. This understanding of evolution drives home the point that we are related to all life on the planet, rather than mere obligatory roommates of sorts.
Finally, understanding evolution may help us to understand the future of our planet. There is little difference between those that subscribed to a geocentric model of the universe and those today that subscribe to an “anthro-centric” model of the planet. Our religion also teaches us to look outside ourselves to the needs and well-being of others. That teaching should extend to earth and all its inhabitants, not just our fellow men. Men were not meant to be the focus of all life, rather we are intended to be stewards to our planet and the life contained thereon.
I submit that if we continue spreading evo-literacy, people will also become more eco-literate. Once we understand how intertwined our fate and the planet’s fate are, we are much less likely to desecrate the earth. Evolution gives us an immediate and scientifically founded reason to care for the earth and guard against actions that may cause it damage.
Theodore Dobzhansky wrote in 1973 that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (American Biology Teacher, Volume 35, pages 125-129). Given Gallup Poll data asserting that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution as of February 2009, one must conclude that to 61% of Americans who do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, nothing in biology makes sense. That frightens me because biology (the study of life) and evolution give us a new and deeper understanding of the earth, and our relation ship to it and all things found on it.
Evolution teaches us that the planet is very old, and that the world’s history is our history. Most of us have a difficult time understanding how old the earth really is, but evolution helps us to gain more perspective. Although it appears that life formed on earth relatively quickly (a billion years or so after the formation of the planet), it takes millions of years and generations for time to become meaningful. Earth time is deep time. Our lifetimes are barely noticeable next to the lifespan of the earth. Becoming evo-literate brings our roles on the earth into perspective.
Evolution also teaches us about our intimate and necessary relationship with earth. Using genetic markers, scientists can now trace the human record across the globe, back to Africa where genetic diversity is the greatest. We can see similarities across species as well, not just within species. This understanding of evolution drives home the point that we are related to all life on the planet, rather than mere obligatory roommates of sorts.
Finally, understanding evolution may help us to understand the future of our planet. There is little difference between those that subscribed to a geocentric model of the universe and those today that subscribe to an “anthro-centric” model of the planet. Our religion also teaches us to look outside ourselves to the needs and well-being of others. That teaching should extend to earth and all its inhabitants, not just our fellow men. Men were not meant to be the focus of all life, rather we are intended to be stewards to our planet and the life contained thereon.
I submit that if we continue spreading evo-literacy, people will also become more eco-literate. Once we understand how intertwined our fate and the planet’s fate are, we are much less likely to desecrate the earth. Evolution gives us an immediate and scientifically founded reason to care for the earth and guard against actions that may cause it damage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)