Why So Sad?

I went to the San Francisco Zoo this past weekend with my BF. It was a really fun day, but I've decided that I don't think zoo's are ethical. Especially in this day and age when we know so much about other animals, it seems pretty ignorant to think they could ever be happy in the little enclosures zoo's are able to provide.
Especially for primates (and in marine parks I would include dolphins). I think that while certainly not exactly the same as humans, both primates (apes in particular) and dolphins have all the necessary faculties to experience boredom, sadness, hopelessness and probably something similar to depression. And for those reasons I think essentially having a gorilla enclosure, or a chimp enclosure is just as inhumane as capturing a bunch of people and forcing them to live in a trailer together.
Case in point, the silver back gorilla at the zoo the other day. At first he just sat there watching all the people taking pictures of him (myself included). But the longer we stood there the more apparent it was that he was actually watching us. He looked at each person, observed their expression, scowled when a baby started crying. It was weird, but I could tell he was thinking, AND I could read his facial expressions almost as well as I can read a humans. He was sad. And bored....and feeling trapped and helpless. I could actually see the frustration in his eyes! It was so awful, because I know that his situation wont be getting any better. His life is pretty much set, and the rest of it will be spent in that little fenced in patch of land.
After a while he went and sat in the doorway of his shelter, away from the people and the prying eyes. He just sat there, frowning, and sighing, shaking his head and rubbing his eyes and brow in exactly the same way I do when I am stuck at work and itching to get out of there. He was so unhappy. Even the little kids noticed and inquired of their parents why he was so sad.Ironically most of the parents couldn't see it. They said things like "He's not sad. That's just what gorillas look like."
The chimps were in no better situation. If anything their enclosure was worse. Not that the zoo people aren't trying, but what I mean is that compared to their natural habitat even the best enclosures fall woefully short. And this was not the best. The chimps seemed a little...crazy. I've read a great deal about them, and at least have a marginal grasp on their habits, and the chimps there were...off. Like they were patients in a mental hospital. One was zoned out, another grooming himself to the point of rubbing bald spots into his hair. They had a sedated/ bang-your-head-against-a-wall kind of vibe going on.
But the enclosures for many of the other animals were just as inadequate. The bears, lions, tigers, all had such small areas. They couldn't even get up to a full speed run in the space available to them. Again, I don't think zoo keepers are out to emotionally scar the animals, but...For as much as I enjoyed seeing them in real life it just felt...wrong.
To take a polar bear away from it's home on thousands of miles of moving ice, and put him in a 3,000 square foot enclosure just seems...terrible. To take a hippo who's natural habitat is the whole of the Nile River and put him in a corral with a tiny 10x15' pool of water (that he can barely turn around in) doesn't seem quite right.
For certain animals, like fish, insects, reptiles, most birds, rodents, and domesticated animals I think zoo's are a fine idea. A friend of mine mentioned a particularly content and jolly raccoon at a zoo he visited recently. And the goats at the SF zoo seemed pretty happy to be fed and brushed by patrons. Cool. But to take large animals, or smart ones and force them into tiny spaces for the rest of their lives is not humane. And I think the whole idea of "captivity" creates a division between us and them that really isn't there. We'd never put people in zoo's (although we do lock them in cells as punishment!) because it would be wrong, on so many levels that are obvious to everyone. So how is OK to put a chimp or gorilla in one? I think the answer is because most people don't see us and "them" as part of a continuum, but as two completely un-relateable things. And that is a mistake. We should know better than that.
And the truth is we don't need zoo's anymore to connect with the animal world. With all the beautiful documentaries out there, and 3d capabilities, we can virtually explore other animals and their awesomeness in their own world, where they belong. And they are more interesting to watch when they are in their native environments, doing what evolution has honed them to do.
I'm not sure what I'd suggest we do moving forward since all the animals currently in captivity probably don't have the skills to survive on their own. Maybe, as sad and unfair as it may be, the only thing to do is let them finish out their lives in the zoo, but stop replacing them with new animals once they are gone.
What do you think? Do you have any thoughts about this issue?

Vegan for Dinner

My first vegan dinner!

On my trip back to Michigan I was treated to my first vegan meal ever by my brother. And I learned three very important things:
1.) Being vegan is not contageous.
2.) Contrary to popular thought eating a dinner without meat won't kill you.
3.) Vegan meals can actually taste good!

Mixing the dough

He made something called saitan, which is pronounced "Satan" (and was pretty much who I thought would be the mastermind behind a meal that contained no meat or dairy products of any kind). Saitan is a flour and water mixture which becomes spongy  in consistency that is then boiled and takes on the flavor of whatever is used to season the water. Then you fry it in a pan in bacon grease and...just kidding:) You fry it using some olive oil and soy sauce.We used it to make a stir fry and it took the place of chicken or steak.
It was a simple recipe, and although it didn't taste like meat per se, it had a fried noodle taste to it that I found to be really quite good. And it filled me up. I don't know any vegans beside my brother, but if I did I would totally make this dish again!

Frying it up

While I'm not sure that I'd ever have it in me to give up meat entirely, I have definitely had an epiphany in terms of the possibilities of vegan cuisine, and would be very interested to try it again. It seems to be pretty tough to eat vegan, especially out in restaurants, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to have a good meal, especially at home. And it really makes you think about how much we use other animals, their unfertilized offspring and their milk in our everyday cooking. Considering the sheer number of animals necessary to support such a diet as ours there is definitely a point to be made about the process by which these animals and the products made by them end up on our dinner table. I think that is why most vegans are vegan, because of ethical concerns related to the exploitation and quality of life of the creatures that eventually become our dinner. If anyone has anything they'd like to share concerning this topic, I'd be very happy to post it in the main body of this blog for others to read!

Is This Racist?

I was watching TV the other night when a commercial came on for an internet dating site called blackpeoplemeet.com. I was really surprised by it.
First of all it's implying that skin color is a number one priority of some singles. Instead of meeting interesting and people based on compatibility and personality criteria as on a traditional dating site, some singles would rather limit themselves and potential spouses  based on compatibility of skin pigmentation. And as learned people of all skin tones have been saying for quite some time now, segregation whether pushed upon a group of people, or instituted from within, based on skin color is ridiculous and should have no place in modern society.
Secondly, I wonder how people would respond if the commercial had been for whitepeoplemeet.com? Even to my ears it sounds worse somehow, when it should only sound equally as terrible. I think it would be an interesting psychological experiment for someone to run an ad on TV for some sort of white only dating site and see what happens. I feel like it would be a much bigger deal.
I've had similar discussions with friends, and they seem to say the same thing, that I don't understand because I'm white, and I've never been a minority. But I don't understand that as an argument. We aren't talking about me, we are talking about racism, and we have two choices. Either it's right or it's wrong. Either you believe that it is fair to distinguish (for good or bad) groups of people by skin color, or you don't. And I don't.
I know this is a touchy subject, but what do you think?

Evolutionary Psychology

One of the many books I have been concurrently reading is called The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. And I have to say that out of all the books I've read recently, this one is by far the best. And by the best I mean that my mind is blown every few pages. I've spent a couple hours actually reading it, and several days contemplating the implications the author asserts. I'm only half way done, but it's so compelling that I thought I'd write about the subject now, and maybe post some thoughts about the content again later.
The book is a summary of the history of, and current research being conducted, in the rather adolescent field of evolutionary psychology.
This new branch of science is, in and of itself, a fascinating concept. Where psychology is the study of human thought and emotion, evolutionary psychology is the inquiry into why we have thoughts and feelings in the first place, and how hundreds of thousands of years of evolution has shaped our interpretation of a moral self.
The biggest insight to me has been the kinds of questions that evolutionary psychology asks. It addresses questions that most of us have probably never even considered. For example. Pornography (I just finished reading the section on this so I'll use it as an example since it's freshest in my mind). Everyone knows it's more of a "guy" thing than a girl thing. (I'm not stereotyping, it's been documented.)  But evolutionary psychology asks why don't women feel the same way about it? It asks why does it take an entire romance novel to convince a woman of the same feelings that a Playboy centerfold can produce in a guy in two seconds? The end result is the same (sex) but the road to get there is totally different. It goes further to ask the question why do men  become physically...agitated by a two dimensional image of a naked woman, but not compelled into fatherhood by a similar image of a baby? Likewise a woman can see a naked man on paper and not be impressed at all, but will resort to making kissy faces at an ad for diapers with a cute baby smiling on the page (again, not stereotyping, it's documented).
Aren't those interesting questions?  I mean there has to be something to it, because you don't see pubescent boys locking themselves in their bedrooms and fantasizing about being dad's, or teenage girls aspiring to be porn stars.
It's amazing to me to realize that I've overlooked so many weird things we humans to because they are "normal" for us. But when you step back, and approach our humanity with a more critical eye, you begin to notice disparities in our actions that our own intellect can detect once properly focused. Like I said before, mind blowing!
OK, that's all for now but stay tuned for more!

Oh Mexico

Mexico has been in the international news a lot lately, and not for their great coffee or soccer teams. Since the 2006 election of their newest president Philipe Calderon, who vowed to end the drug trade in Mexico, the drug cartels have been at it non-stop to threaten, terrorize, and kill anyone who opposes them. They have already murdered and decapitated several mayors of Mexican border towns. They have murdered people (maybe some of their former employees?) in rehabilitation centers in Mexico City and elsewhere. Birthday parties aren't even safe and 14 were gunned down just last week while celebrating. Also last week the cartels opened fire on a 3 day old newly built police station (without provocation) in a border town called Los Ramones scaring the crap out of the 14 newly hired police officers who fled back to their homes following the incident.
30,000 people or more have died since Calderon took office and declared war on the cartels. And right now it doesn't look like his plan is working. The drug dealers aren't even waiting to be provoked, they are attacking first in brutal, horrible ways to terrify everyone into compliance.
What should Mexico do? The local law enforcement is totally inadequate to deal with the cartels. The men that oppose them end up dead along with the rest of their families, and those that don't are paid off and hardly qualify as police officers.
Should the military step in and just start rounding people up? Can they do that? Even if they do they wouldn't be able to touch the top guys anyway. They'd get a few runners and maybe some town thugs, but not the bosses, the head hanchos who orchestrate the whole thing and have all the money. And what about all the families and innocent people that have been dragged into it because they were afraid for their lives?
Should the government just go in and eradicate the cartel people once and for all. Shoot them, and not wait for court dates, innocence or guilt, and prison sentences? Just go up to their fancy homes, and processing plants and kill every last person there and start from scratch? What kind of government would do something like that, and what kind of people could have faith in the fairness of it afterward?
I confess I don't know a whole lot about Mexican politics, but what I do know is that is is a very corrupt, and complicated mess at the moment. All of the Mexican people I know want the drug dealers out, and an honest government in place. But they say what are the people to do? Most of them are coerced into their corruption, and are terrified by the cartels. They have children and wives who's lives are threatened if they don't comply. Men and women who oppose the cartels loose their business, their homes and their lives. All the people who stand up for what's right don't ride off into the sunset like Zorro. They end up having their head delivered to their wife in a cardboard box.
Most of the Mexican I know say it sucked having drug dealers in their country, but it was better for the people before Calderon when everyone just turned a blind eye and let the dealers do what they wanted. There was peace because the dealers stayed out of the way of the local people and let them do their own thing. But I think that is a terrible idea. Giving in to the problem is no solution. Just think of all the junkies those drugs are producing and how many lives they are destroying.
But there has to be a solution doesn't there? Something I am not thinking of? It can't all be just hopeless can it? I just can't think of a good one. I can't think of any plan to get rid of the cartels that wouldn't be wrong on some level. Do you have any ideas?

A Question of Ethics

I have been a little apprehensive about writing this blog because I feel like I might be taken the wrong way. But at the same time I think it's an interesting enough question to throw out there and see what people think. So here I go.

Would it be ethically wrong to throw all our trash and nuclear waste into space?

I think it would solve a lot of problems such as pollution of water sources, the lack of space for landfills in urban areas, and the question of what to do with radioactive material. When I see photos of rivers in India and China choked with plastic bags and Styrofoam and little kids bathing in it it's just horrible. I feel bad for the people (even though it's their own fault) and for the flora and fauna that are obviously being devastated. Launching it out into the cosmos seems like a fine method to get it out of the way. But I have a hard time evaluating the impact all the trash on the planet would have on our solar system, or even if it would. I mean space is HUGE! The probability of us (or anyone else for that matter) accidentally running into a previously tossed bundle of trash has got to be really small. And the odds of finding again previously discarded interplanetary trash (without the use of GPS or calculations) seems like it would be impossible. I t just doesn't seem like the maximum amount of refuse we could produce here on earth for the next 500 or 1,000 years would "put a dent in space" so to speak. But maybe it would? And who knows maybe in the distant future some alien race would find one of our trash heaps floating past Proxima Centauri and come looking for us. Our bundles of plastic bottles and uranium could be like calling cards floating through the universe saying "Hey! We're here! And we're slobs!" It seems like such a good idea except for the fact it just sounds wrong doesn't it?

I get a nagging feeling that there is something wrong with the idea, like I'm saying "lets dump it in the ocean. No one will notice." (Except that space is MUCH bigger). I start thinking tossing our garbage into the cosmos is an "easy" way out of our problems, and that it's unethical somehow. Why bring re-usable bags to the store when plastic ones are easier and you can just send them off to Jupiter when you are done with them? It seems cruel. I mean what did space ever do to us? We made a mess of the earth, and now instead of taking responsibility for our mistakes we decide to make a mess of the entire solar system? (Again, if that's even possible.) Would it be less bad if we launched everything into the sun instead of just into empty space? Maybe it would give the sun extra fuel to burn longer. (OK I realize that was completely ridiculous, all of the garbage on the planet wouldn't do a darn thing to the Sun, but that's kind of my point...)

On top of that I wonder is throwing garbage into interstellar space more wrong than burying it beneath the ground? And if so, why? Every year the population is growing, and every year so is our waste production. Recycling and reusing are great, but the largest increases in populations occur where these methods are impractical and too expensive. You could argue that transporting all our trash into space would be equally as costly, and you may be right. I have no idea. But if it wasn't too expensive, do you think ethically, it would be OK to do it?
Tell me what you think!!!

What Are You?

Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primate, Hominidae, Homininae, Hominini, Homo, H. sapien. That's the easy answer, but what does that mean? I have found myself asking this question over and over in as many different contexts as you can imagine. I am coming to believe that until each of us finds our own answer this question, our personal sense of morality will be resting on shaky ground. It's such a difficult question to breach though. Where do I even start? It is becoming clear to me that whether religious or not, most people think we humans are "higher" or "separate" from all the rest of the animals on earth. Whether it be because we are made in the image of God, or because our brains evolved consciousness, there seems to be a common opinion that (for whatever reason) the rules that apply to the rest of biological life don't apply to us. And here I must confess the more I think about that the less I believe it's true. There are several reasons for this, a couple of which I'd like to explain here.

The first is that it is impossible for us to objectively view anything. We are 100% influenced by our consciousness, and our self awareness. There is no avoiding it. Everything I am writing is influenced by my ability to think about it, it can be no other way. Wolves cannot view the world outside of being a wolf, and although we'd like to think we could imagine what it would like to be a wolf, the fact that we can "imagine" being a wolf is the very reason why we could never really know what it's like to be one.
We think we have a responsibility to the planet and to all life on it, but we only do as far as it appears to us, through our own narrow paradigm. And what if our paradigm is wrong, or at the very least not as ethical as we think it is? That is where I pause, and find fault in the above argument. I am all for saving the polar bears and stopping global warming, but is driving my car less, and donating to the World Wildlife Fund really the moral thing to do? If the earth became hotter we might perish along with the polar bear and Emperor Penguins but the fact of the matter is there are millions of species that would actually benefit from the warmer climate and who knows what animals and bugs natural selection would favor then? Is it our moral (and ethical) obligation to save the bears (and ourselves) and deny a warm and blissful future to all the critters that would benefit from it? How can we even claim to have any idea what is best for nature, when we can only view it through our own eyes.
I wonder what if there had been "intelligent" life around during the time of the dinosaurs, and those conscientious beings (like us) had started a campaign to "Save the Dinosaurs!"? What if they succeeded in repopulating the earth with T-Rex's and Velocaraptors? Wouldn't they have felt like they were doing the moral thing by saving a species from the brink of extinction? Doesn't that sound familiar? But then where would we be right now exactly? Probably sleeping in a burrow surrounded by acorn shells and our own feces, that's where. Even if these imaginary beings were intelligent, they could not possibly foresee the consequences of their actions.
It surprises me we think we know more than nature. It surprises me that we really think we have any right or authority to alter things in any direction on purpose. We criticize ourselves for depleting the ozone, but we pat each other on the back for trying to rebuild it. What is the difference? In both instances we are changing somethingto suit ourselves, that left to it's own devices would be different. All animals leave their mark. Bears don't tidy up a moose carcass after they are done gorging themselves. They leave it behind and other animals and bacteria benefit from it. How is it that we think our brains know more about how things "should be" than three billion years of evolution? We say we are doing it for the planet, for all living things, but that isn't true. We are only doing it for ourselves, because the fact of the matter is the world would get along just fine without us. Actually it would probably get along better. The environmentalists shout that they are trying to save the earth. Being as objective as I can possibly be given my humanity, I would argue the best way to "save the earth" (in the way the environmentalists mean) is to get rid of us. And I'd also like to point out we are doing a good job of heading in that general direction. So maybe nature does know more than us after all. I could go on and on about this, but I think I have made my point, and if I ever want to finish this blog I'd better move on.

Number two. Evolution may be unpredictable, but there are still patters that can be seen. One thing that stands out is evolution sticks with what works. If it ain't broke, evolution doesn't fix it. That's the reason most animals have bilateral symmetry, why there are only a handful of body plans in all of the biological world, and why all mammals have hair. Every once in a while natural selections tries something new, after all that's how we get change. If the "new" adaption works it proliferates, if it doesn't it goes the way of the dodo. Good ideas are expressed in multiples, bad ideas are singular. That is why I find it interesting that we are the only ones that developed intelligence. (OK maybe chimps and dolphins too, but not to the degree we do, and certainly not the environmental impact we do). Isn't that odd? Think about adaptive traits and how they spread among species. Teeth, claws, fur, big ears. All of those traits can be found on a number of animals. But our big brains are pretty unique. And more than that, (and more to my point) look what it has resulted in? Dinosaurs, with their little brains roamed the earth for over 150,000,000 years, yet in about 200,000 years we H. sapiens have evolved to the point that we can cause our own extinction. As far as I know, this has never happened before. And evolutionarily speaking that is a huge disadvantage. Our genes want to live and be passed on, anything that hinders that process from occurring constitute an unfit species. I am beginning to believe that our intelligence and our consciousness are an evolutionary failure. Stated simply our big brains are a bad idea from a purely evolutionary standpoint. I don't think we will be a long lived species because we are committing every no-no in the evolutionary book. We are outgrowing our resources, we are overpopulating our habitats, we are creating things that are harmful to ourselves, we are our own greatest threat. Just think about that last one for a second. Can you think of any other animal who's greatest predator is it's own kind? That's about as f*!ked up as it gets where nature is concerned. Right now humanity does not fit the criteria of an evolutionary successful species. If I had to guess I'd say we were at the bottom of the list. We might think we are "moving" ahead with technology and research, but I disagree. In a way I feel that everything that is happening in the world, from a scientific standpoint, is inevitable.

I know this sounds depressing, and I guess it is in a way, but that's not how I feel about it. The most comforting thought I have these days is that I really am a part of the world I live in. I really belong here just as I am, as much as the oak tree out my office window, or the snails that have eaten all my plants. I mess things up, and I make mistakes (like BP and the oil spill), but nature doesn't hate me for it. It will just exploit whatever it can from whatever happens as a result of my life. The proliferation of life on our planet is the closest thing to a miracle I have ever witnessed, and to know that I am a part of that process is humbling and exhilarating. The thing is I am not sure how morality and ethics fits into this view of the world. Can I even have a sense of morality if I think everything that happens (in the large picture) is OK? Am I replacing god with nature, and making up excuses for myself? It's a slippery slope. I think about all the children starving in third world countries, and I want to save them all. But at the same time the facts are if we actually succeed in saving everyone there would be too many of us and we'd all die of starvation. What is the moral view to take? If anyone has any thoughts on this I'd sure like to hear them. This is one of those topics that always leads me around in circles, and causes me endless hours of frustration....that and it's almost my birthday and I always get grouchy around my birthday.

Is 1 always less than 5?

I watched a video yesterday at discovermagazine.com (they have some really great interviews/panels). Anyway all of it was interesting, but one particular topic (or question) stayed with me all through the afternoon. The speaker gave two scenario's and asked the audiences opinion. See what you think.

Story 1:A conductor is driving a train. Ahead on the tracks he see's five men tied up and unable to move out of the way. There is a side track he could divert the train onto by pulling a lever, but there is one man tied on that side. Do you think he should sacrifice the one to save the five? Or, I guess the question is would you think he was a moral person in doing so?

Story 2: A doctor has five patients who all need organ transplants (different organs) or they will die, and a healthy person walks in the hospital that could supply all the organs for the doctor's patients. Do you think it is moral for the doctor to kill the one to save the five now?

I can guess what our response would be to each of these stories. The answer is different depending on the situation. Yes for story 1 and no for story 2. The first is a hero, the second is a murderer. The interesting question is why we would answer the questions differently when essentially the same decision is being made. I can't figure it out.
Any thoughts???Come on! I know you have a theory!

The Kidney Conundrum

I recently read an article (in Discover magazine)about organ harvesting in third world countries. They primarily discussed the sale of kidneys on the black market. I have to admit I was really shocked that such a thing happens. I realize that a person can get by with only one kidney, but I also have to note that we are all born with two which means that there is an evolutionary advantage to having a pair.
Anyway, the article explained how most of the kidneys come from poor people in rural parts of India and various countries in South America, where people are desperate and may sell them for as little as $300. It is terrible to consider being in such dire straits that you would be willing to start selling parts of your body off.
They also mentioned that in China organs are regularly harvested from criminals particularly the people on (their equivalent of) death row. And this is actually what I wanted to talk about.
At first glance this seemed like a good idea to me. If they are going to be put to death anyway, why not save someone else' life with their organs? Why waste a perfectly good kidney when it's only the mind of the murder that has gone bad? And if an individual has taken a life, doesn't it seem only fair they should be required to help save one in return?
But then the more I thought about it, the more I decided against it. First of all I was assuming the person in prison actually committed the crimes they were incarcerated for. Obviously that is often not the case, especially in China. And then I got to thinking about basic human rights. It's one thing to execute someone (actually I am not at all sure what I think about executions, but that is a topic for another day), and quite another to cut them open and remove a part of their body. That is exploitation isn't it? And then you run into the problem of governments putting more people to death simply because they want more money, and need more organs to attain it, and so it gets all muddled. But do you waste perfectly good organs that could go to needy people based on principal?
I must admit these are very preliminary thoughts. Like I said before, I'd never even heard of this before yesterday. I certainly think taking organs from poor, ignorant, desperate people is a crime, but does anyone have any thoughts on taking them from death row prisoners who will be executed either way?