Retrospective 2007 reading list

On numerous occasions while reading Derrick Jensen's Endgame: Resistance, I had to stop, put the book down and think hard about what he was saying. His impassioned calls for action - "why aren't you doing more?" left me seriously questioning my commitment to change the world. Easily the best book that I read this year. Be warned that buying it will get your name on all types of lists. I recommend using cash.

Endgame: Resistance

Cloudstreet

Man's search for meaning

Flow my tears the policeman said

Perdido Street Station

Zodiac

Against the Grain: How agriculture hijacked cizilisation

The ethics of what we eat

The simulacra

The Weather Makers

Dr Blood Money

Great Escapes

The Future Eaters

The singing line

Greeneology

Comfortable with uncertainty

The Da Vinci code

Chart Throb

Triumph of the airheads

Ask and it is given

Natural phenomena this time for sure!

Some 400 short-tailed shearwaters have died near Esperance this week. We are told (again) that this is likely due to various natural phenomena including algal blooms.

In September, a parliamentary inquiry found the export of lead carbonate through Esperance Port contributed to lead pollution which killed almost 10,000 birds.

I guess we don't like to think that we are poisoning the planet. Better to blame "natural causes". I'm sure the state environment department realises that the increased frequency and size of algal blooms is hardly natural. It's caused by ridiculous amounts of nitrogen run-off, and the sewage that we "dispose" of in the ocean.

In any case, just like last time, I think the sudden death of these birds is more likely related to the mining activities in the region that, like mining everywhere, is poisoning the planet.

It is an interesting fact that in nearly all know human mythologies, the underworld is a place of death and danger not just to the body but to the soul. Pluto, Odin and the dwarves of the underworld, or Mars and Vulcan, Gods associated with the metals we bring up from below, all rule over the dark realms that mortals enter at their peril.

Whether we pump oil from the oceans, extract gold from mountains, or scrape away our farms and home to get at the nickel or coal, the fossil fuels and heavy metals we bring up from inside the earth poison our crops and our trees, destroy our children's immune and endocrine systems, give us wasting diseases, and kill our animals and fish - often many years after the money they made us is spent.[Link]

RIP Mutton birds.

Hey buddy, can you spare me a ride?

Interesting juxtaposition of stories on news.com.au today:

# Crude: World oil prices strike 10-month highs
# Record: One million cars sold in a year

To my great surprise, neither mentioned the impending global economic and environmental meltdown starting in 3, 2, 1 ...

Horse sense? Or Zebra sense?

In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond asks why of 148 wild herbivorous mammals that could be considered candidates for domestication by humans, only 14 passed the test (or failed, depending on whose perspective you take I suppose). In answering this question, he uses what is known as the Anna Karenina principle (deficiency in any one of a number of factors results in failure). The 6 factors used are:

• Diet,
  
• Growth rate,
  
• Problems of Captive breeding,
  
• Nasty Disposition,
  
• Tendency to Panic, and
  
• Social Structure,

Diamond points out that the Asiatic ass (pictured), also known as an Onager, has a nasty disposition towards humans and that "All writers about them, from Romans to modern zookeepers, decry their irascible temper and their nasty habit of biting people".

Diamond doesn't explore why it might be that Onagers are so nasty to humans, but my suspicion is that they're extremely clever animals!

Likewise with the Zebra:

Zebras have the unpleasant habit of biting people and not letting go. They thereby injure even more American zookeepers each year than do tigers.

Is it possible that these animals knew the score, that they knew what was at stake and were intelligent enough to deliberately avoid domestication? Or do they just have good instincts?

Zebras are also virtually impossible to lasso with a rope - even for cowboys who win rodeo championships by lassoing horses - because of their unfailing ability to watch the rope noose fly towards them and then duck their head out of the way.

Cruelty? You can bet on it.

According to the news over at horseracingkills.org, a number of people in the industry have recently been caught out electrocuting their horses in an effort to make them run faster.

I suspect this is probably the tip of an iceberg of cruelty that the racing industry would prefer to keep concealed lest it damage the image of this much loved (and very profitable!) "sport".

Judge Lewis said it was "a sad state of affairs" when a trainer, in a bid to entice a horse to perform better, reverted to inflicting pain on a horse via an electrical shock.

entice: to attract artfully or adroitly or by arousing hope or desire.

No, that's not quite the word I would have used.

Canaries in the coalnickel mine?

Thousands of birds have been mysteriously dying in Esperance - literally falling from the sky according to this report. An older article indicates that this has been going on for the past month or so.

Acting chief veterinary officer Fiona Sunderman said toxins were the most likely cause but the deaths could be due to anything from toxic algae to chemicals and pesticides.

Birds convulsing as they died is clearly symptomatic of poisoning, which seems to be view of this report. But poisoning with what? My armchair bird forensic scientist skills tell me that toxic algae seems unlikely given the number of honey-eaters dying.

Meanwhile, the discovery of over 60 dead birds resulted in a temporary shutdown of 10 blocks of downtown Austin. Signs of the coming apocolypse or just some bird-hatin' Texan?

The Greenhouse Gas Indicator

Mr Thwaites said he expected the figure to decrease. "Now that people are aware that we are emitting about 2 million tonnes of greenhouse gas every week, I expect that people will start looking at ways to cut back. One of the problems with greenhouse gas emissions is that people haven't been aware how much we are emitting and why." [source]

You obviously can't change what you can't measure, so it's nice to see the launch of a weekly indicator of statewide greenhouse gas emissions (found here)

I'm wondering if Thwaites will be correct though - will that figure decrease in the near future? I'm doubtful of any significant decreases for two reasons:

• Our population is still growing at more than 1% per year, (which happens to roughly coincide with the 25% increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the last 17 years).
  
  
• I've reluctantly come to suspect that Jevons paradox is very real. (Anecdotal evidence: the number of houses in my neighbourhood that have installed efficient air-con units that are then continually run day and night seems to be increasing).

So I guess we'll just have to wait and see, won't we Mr Thwaites?
If the indicator *does* continue to go up in spite of our efforts, it might provide a bit of a wake up call to those who believe that token efforts like "switching appliances off at the power point wherever possible" are going to cut it. It might show that we need to think bigger, and start re-examining some of the things that we consider not-negotiable in our modern way of life.

Retrospective 2006 reading list

The following list of books read during the course of last year gives a pretty reasonable idea of where my interests are lying these days. Highlights included the surprisingly entertaining and fascinating story detailing the origins of Greenpeace, and yet another classic Philip K. Dick novel.

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies

Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life

In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave

First Casualty, The

Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World

The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies

The End of Oil

Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World

How to Stop Worrying and Start Living

Green or Gone

Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating

How to Talk to Anyone

Silent Spring

Ubik

The Man in the High Castle

The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch

The Sacred Balance: Rediscovering Our Place in Nature

From Naked Ape to Superspecies

Well & Good: How We Feel & Why It Matters

David Suzuki: The Autobiography

Hypotheticals, hypocrisy and untruths

ANIMAL liberationists – people either hate 'em or love 'em. So what do you think of animal libbers? Do you think they play an important role in working to reduce cruelty to animals? [discussion]

I've always thought that web-based discussions can have a positive effect on participants and readers. Not always of course and not for every participant, but sometimes people learn valuable lessons from online discussions between people arguing different viewpoints. In fact, my own views on many issues have often changed based on discussions I've read, or been involved with online. Re-examining, evaluating and making adjustments to my beliefs is typically a pretty slow and on-going process, but well thought out viewpoints that are clearly presented in sometimes otherwise rowdy discussions have on occasion jolted me into changing my own thinking about all sorts of issues.

So I find it disappointing and discouraging to read something like this train wreck of a thread. So many lousy talking points, poorly thought out arguments and ad hominems. So little sensible discourse. Do any of the readers of such a discussion take away anything new or useful? Do the posters even think through what they are writing? A few examples:

Appeals to hypotheticals:

"Send them back to the "Ice Age" and watch them cry when they see that the ONLY way to keep warm is to skin an animal and use its hyde [sic] to keep warm."

This argumentative technique is unfortunately common and trys to "force" otherwise compassionate people into admitting that yes, under some unlikely circumstances that they'll never find themselves in, they would kill or otherwise harm other living creatures. A generic form of this goes something like... "If you were starving to death on a desert island, would you... etc etc". By utilising unlikely hypotheticals that have absolutely no bearing on the reality that most of us live in today, the user of such arguments attempts to discredit their opponents ethical stance and justify their own animal killing ways. Of course, simply pointing out that your ethical choices are shaped by the world and reality that you actually inhabit, as opposed to some unlikely fantasy world is often met with hostility, or a shift to some other argumentative technique...

Accusations of hypocrisy:

"I would like to ask this of all of the “activists”, how many of you have a pair of leather shoes or a leather belt or bag or even a purse??????"

A just cause doesn't become unjust simply because all supporters aren't practicing what they preach. Either the cause (animal liberation in this case) is just and worthwhile or it isn't. Implicit in this type of argument is the notion that if you aren't perfect then you're whole viewpoint can be dismissed - ridiculous but I imagine very convenient - simply dismissing the entire argument of the so-called hypocrite means you don't have to examine your own beliefs and actions at all.

Blatant untruths:

"The laws relating to animal treatment, are already far harsher than those laws relating to other human beings."

As far as I know, I can't confine a human for it's entire life, slaughter it and then feast on it's flesh. For non-human animals though, this practice isn't just condoned, it's actively encouraged and endorsed. Be warned though, that questioning this practice leads to idiotic discussions involving many poorly thought out arguments.

Livestock’s long shadow

"With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes."

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation have released an interesting report, detailing how livestock are significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems we're facing on this beautiful planet.

"Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock"

They also list a number of feeble "remedies" that could be used to help the situation. These include "Improving animals’ diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions". Somehow I don't think it's the diet of the livestock that we should be re-examining.

Revolt

It has long been apparent that every large, land-based animal on this planet is ultimately fighting a losing battle with humankind.

And yet entirely befitting of an animal with such a highly developed sensibility, a deep-rooted sense of family and, yes, such a good long-term memory, elephants are not going out quietly. They aren't leaving without making some kind of statement, one to which scientists from a variety of disciplines, including human psychology, are beginning to pay close attention. [source]

I watched earthlings not so long ago (well, as much as I could anyway - sometimes I had to look away and switch to reading the script instead). It contains the fairly well known footage of Tyke found online here. That footage seems incredibly significant to me, for some reason that I haven't quite put my finger on. Other footage in Earthlings fills me with more familiar feelings of horror, shame, sorrow, pity, rage, regret - y'know the typical range of feelings a compassionate human experiences when viewing such material.

But Tyke seems to be showing us something else... something that I dare say that most humans who willingly uses animals for food and entertainment don't want to admit to. I guess it's that animals have interests that are every bit as important to them as our own interests are to us.

The very deliberate intent behind Tyke's actions suggest she had a very strong desire to follow her own interests - she wanted out of the circus business and had reached her breaking point. I get a little bit of that sometimes. Work might suck, and I'd rather be doing something else. Of course, I can always quit if I want to - I have that choice. Or I can keep my job but take a day off and do whatever the hell I want, anything that makes me feel a little bit more human. I think Tyke wanted to feel more like an elephant. I don't blame her for mauling her captors and making a run for it. She wanted to break out and escape from the life that she was trapped in. What did she hope to find when she busted out that gate? A savannah? An Acacia to stand under? Or a running stream to drink from? Certainly not heavily armed police I guess.

And I'm again left with an uncomfortable feeling that comes from glimpsing some truth that perhaps I would rather not know. I'm getting that a lot these days...

A different language

I was awoken by a knock on the door on Saturday and greeted by two salespeople from one of the major electricity retailers. They launched into a spiel about the potential savings I could obtain if I switched my account over to them (on a five year contract of course). Now normally I'd quickly disengage, but I'm kind of curious since I deliberately switched away from this retailer about a year ago. They are hurriedly scribbling numbers on a pad, showing me how much extra money I would "have in my pocket" etc. They seem quite sure that I should be excited by that prospect. I attempt to inform them that I choose to pay an extra ~5.5c/KWh (or about 40%) for green electricity with their competitor since they have a better range of plans based on sourcing electricity from different mixes of renewables. They seem a little put off by this and not quite sure how to respond. It's only momentarily though and they quickly resume scribbling bogus numbers and making promises of large savings.

Sigh.

Given their apparent unwillingness to realize I'm not so interested in the cost of my electricity as I am about pollution in the Latrobe Valley from coal burning power plants I say goodbye. It's not their fault of course - they know their market, and that market probably IS mostly concerned with economics. At least for now.

Growing without limits

'The idea that we can address climate change matters successfully at the expense of economic growth is not only unrealistic but it also unacceptable to the population of Australia which I represent.' - Prime Minister John Howard, at the Asia-Pacific Clean Development and Climate Partnership [link].

Arh, the growth at all costs mantra. Perhaps that's one of the reasons we find ourselves in this predicament? As ecologist Paul Ehrlich says, endless growth in a finite world is the creed of the cancer cell, and the result of adhering to it is death. In any case, I think I might pick up a copy of “The Ecology of Commerce” and send it Mr Howards way. Maybe he will be able to sneak in a page or two between re-reads of his favourite Bradman biography or something.

"Howard told a conference of Asia-Pacific nations and corporations that growth was the only way many nations could reduce poverty levels among their populations."

Surely the problem is not lack of wealth, but the inequality in the distribution of that wealth? In “Naked Ape to Superspecies”, economist Herman Daly says:

“We’ve built the modern economy around the idea of growth, I believe at least partly, in order to avoid facing up to the problem of sharing. If you don’t continue to grow, and you still have poverty, then you have to redistribute. You have to share in order to cure poverty. How do you cure poverty without sharing? Well, the only way we’ve been able to come up with is growing.”

So it seems you can either keep growing (and hope the poor see some of the benefits) or you can share the wealth around more evenly. The latter is a moral problem of the type that we humans apparently aren’t very good at solving. So we tend to favor the technical problem of chasing continual economic growth – with its inherent detrimental effect on the environment.

We have children too!!

"The people who run the private sector . . . they too have children, they too have grandchildren and they too live and breathe in the world and they would like things dealt with effectively, and that's what this (meeting) is all about," - US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman speaking at the inaugural meeting of the Asia-Pacific Clean Development and Climate Partnership [as quoted here]

This sounds suspiciously like something John Stauber (author of Toxic Sludge is Good For You and Trust Us We're Experts) describes as being part of the standard anti-environmentalist spiel:

“A typical corporate rap might be to sit down with a concerned group of people and say, ‘Look, you know no one is more concerned than the people at XYZ corporation about chemicals in the environment. After all, we have children too. And we live in this community and we’re just like you. If we’re put out of business, we can’t provide jobs for our community. So let’s sit down and work for a common solution’ ”.

This approach is apparently part of the divide and conquer technique used to combat environment and social grass-roots activists. PR companies hired to make polluting corporations look better divide social activists into three or four categories – the radicals, the idealists, and the realists (and sometimes the opportunists). The above, “we’re just like you, we breath the same air, but want to keep our [polluting] industry thriving because we all need jobs, right?” shtick is intended to “educate” and sway the realists (and to a lesser extent the idealists) away from the radicals. By presenting a “solution” favorable to industry that sounds reasonable to realists, the radicals (no matter how rational and just their demands) will seem extreme and thus have less credibility. At least, that’s the theory.

Over-seafooding

“Every fish, plant, insect, bird and animal that disappears is a part of me dying. I know all their names, and I touch them with my spirit.” - Okanagan elder Jeanette Armstrong [as quoted in From Naked Ape to Superspecies].

Fortunately, I’m nowhere near a TV when Today Tonight is on. Unfortunately, I was subjected to an advert for this evening’s episode. Yet another weight loss scheme, and [adopting overly dramatic voiceover] “The unthinkable is happening, the ocean is running out of seafood.” From the 10 second blurb, it seems that illegal (and usually foreign) fisherman are depleting our, err, “seafood” stocks.

Blaming collapsing fish populations on illegal/foreign fisherman is conveniently comfortable for TT viewers I'm sure. But could the fact that Australia exports some $1.5 billion worth of seafood and aquaculture products (and is actively trying to create larger export markets) be indicative of “taking more than our fair share”?

And calling it “seafood” instead of say “fish” or “marine life” is telling. Just like trees, birds and other animals, fish are seen as nothing but machines useful for economic production - a resource to be exploited.

A slightly more sensible news piece on the same topic can be found here: The fished-out planet.