An antidote for amanita mushroom (death cap) poisoning, known for some time in Europe, is now being tried successfully by Dominican Hospital. On the surface, this is a good thing, but things are not always how they appear.
People actually pick these mushrooms, confusing them with editable types. This is rather like confusing a redwood tree with a manzanita. Since almost everyone knows that there are toxic mushrooms, particularly anyone who goes mushroom picking, you might think they would avoid anything they were suspicious of. Apparently not. Then, they don't just nibble, but make a meal of these before finding out if there are bad effects.
Now, remember Darwin's natural selection, the process by which individuals most fit survive to pass on their genes. “Most fit” for an antelope means being able to run fast, for a hawk, having good eye sight and for a human, being intelligent. So, people who do really stupid things don't survive, thus they don't pass on genes for stupidity. However, if we take idiots, cure them of the idiotic things they do to themselves, well, there goes the gene pool.
People who climb mountains in a snow storm, do skateboard tricks without a helmet, drive too fast on narrow, dirt, mountain roads, play Russian Roulette, pick fights with heavily armed toughs in a bar or pick unknown mushrooms are saying loud and clear, “I'm too damn dumb to live.”
Monday, May 10, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Drilling and environmental protection: the pendulum swings.
The pendulum swings, always back and forth, never stopping in the center, and so the ramifications of the Gulf oil spill will play out.
Environmental damage has led to restrictions on drilling, off our coasts, north, west and east. Then, with the middle east situation, a new push for energy independence and more competition for petroleum products, the "drill baby, drill" mantra is again being heard.
Now, with this horrible spill, the voices for more drilling will be all but silenced for a time. However, with demand for oil rising even faster than the world's population, prices will go up while supplies become limited. The oil producing countries of the middle east, growing less enamored of the US due to our policy of making friends with them by making war on them, will be happy to sell to growing Asian economies, hungry to develop and to put their newly affluent people behind the wheel of autos.
So, in a very few years, collective memory being all too short, Americans will forget this spill and the call for drilling will again be loud and clear. And since the pendulum keeps swinging, another spill will start the cycle over again.
The reality is that until we develop alternative sources of energy well enough to end our dependence of fossil fuels, the pressure to drill will continue. Given a choice between drilling in ecologically sensitive areas and taking millions of cars off the roads, Americans will conveniently forget what is happening in the Gulf.
So, what can we do? Accountability is the key. When we allow an oil company to drill, there must be stipulations, rigid controls. We need further research into safety, with our government and the oil companies engaged in the best engineering and science. Once best practices are codified, these would be the law of the land regarding any new drilling, constantly updated as new knowledge is gained.
Would this be 100% effective? Nothing is 100%, but done right, we could raise the bar to very nearly 100%. When our river levies that are built to 25 or 50 year flood standards fail, we usually upgrade to 100 year protection, which all but prevents any further failure. The same type of thinking should apply to drilling, even though this would be done by a public and private mandated team effort.
Environmental damage has led to restrictions on drilling, off our coasts, north, west and east. Then, with the middle east situation, a new push for energy independence and more competition for petroleum products, the "drill baby, drill" mantra is again being heard.
Now, with this horrible spill, the voices for more drilling will be all but silenced for a time. However, with demand for oil rising even faster than the world's population, prices will go up while supplies become limited. The oil producing countries of the middle east, growing less enamored of the US due to our policy of making friends with them by making war on them, will be happy to sell to growing Asian economies, hungry to develop and to put their newly affluent people behind the wheel of autos.
So, in a very few years, collective memory being all too short, Americans will forget this spill and the call for drilling will again be loud and clear. And since the pendulum keeps swinging, another spill will start the cycle over again.
The reality is that until we develop alternative sources of energy well enough to end our dependence of fossil fuels, the pressure to drill will continue. Given a choice between drilling in ecologically sensitive areas and taking millions of cars off the roads, Americans will conveniently forget what is happening in the Gulf.
So, what can we do? Accountability is the key. When we allow an oil company to drill, there must be stipulations, rigid controls. We need further research into safety, with our government and the oil companies engaged in the best engineering and science. Once best practices are codified, these would be the law of the land regarding any new drilling, constantly updated as new knowledge is gained.
Would this be 100% effective? Nothing is 100%, but done right, we could raise the bar to very nearly 100%. When our river levies that are built to 25 or 50 year flood standards fail, we usually upgrade to 100 year protection, which all but prevents any further failure. The same type of thinking should apply to drilling, even though this would be done by a public and private mandated team effort.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
immigraton and perception
The new Arizona immigration law, along with the protests against it, has just increased the polarization of the immigration issue. Concerns about the negative effects of illegal immigration on one side, and about immigrants' rights on the other are adding fuel to this growing fire. What is the reality of the situation?
From a societal perspective, perception is reality, literally, not metaphorically. Unlike observer independent reality, such as rocks, trees, elements and stars, things that would still exist even without humans, social reality is observer dependent, but is none the less real, as in national borders, elected offices, corporations, marriage and money.
Does illegal immigration pose a serious threat, a mild threat or none at all? That's a matter of perception. Does Arizona's law constitute a major assault on the rights of Latinos, a minor assault or none at all? That's also a matter of perception, and who and where you are influences your perception. The non-Latino in a border community has a different experience than a recent immigrant.
The central problem is that immigration has become something that is perceived to be an important issue, an emotional issue, an area of concern to many people. Areas of deep concern need to be addressed, and solutions offered, before they grow deeper and more polarized. Frustrated, angry people tend to make bad decisions. Think of the Bolsheviks in Russia and the Nazis in Germany. Our constitution probably prevents something that radical from happening here, but even lesser reactions can be disastrous.
There is no shortage of talking heads who will agitate for anger and retaliation on both sides. If reasonable people don't solve this problem, unreasonable people will step forward to do so. A vocal candidate will undoubtedly come forward with immigrant bashing a central plank in his or her platform. We've had our war on terror, war on drugs and war on poverty. Perhaps we'll have our war on immigrants. Some people are already advocating that.
I imagine that most people see some immigration as non threatening, even, I suspect, a small amount of illegal immigration. At some point many see it as a cultural or economic threat. One person crossing the border has a face, is an impoverished, desperate person seeking a better life for himself and his family. A half million of these are a faceless invasion. And that is the reality of perception.
Recent events have raised a red flag, and if these issues aren't addressed, more people, currently neutral on this issue will start to become polarized. The end result will be a protracted conflict and is not going to be pretty.
From a societal perspective, perception is reality, literally, not metaphorically. Unlike observer independent reality, such as rocks, trees, elements and stars, things that would still exist even without humans, social reality is observer dependent, but is none the less real, as in national borders, elected offices, corporations, marriage and money.
Does illegal immigration pose a serious threat, a mild threat or none at all? That's a matter of perception. Does Arizona's law constitute a major assault on the rights of Latinos, a minor assault or none at all? That's also a matter of perception, and who and where you are influences your perception. The non-Latino in a border community has a different experience than a recent immigrant.
The central problem is that immigration has become something that is perceived to be an important issue, an emotional issue, an area of concern to many people. Areas of deep concern need to be addressed, and solutions offered, before they grow deeper and more polarized. Frustrated, angry people tend to make bad decisions. Think of the Bolsheviks in Russia and the Nazis in Germany. Our constitution probably prevents something that radical from happening here, but even lesser reactions can be disastrous.
There is no shortage of talking heads who will agitate for anger and retaliation on both sides. If reasonable people don't solve this problem, unreasonable people will step forward to do so. A vocal candidate will undoubtedly come forward with immigrant bashing a central plank in his or her platform. We've had our war on terror, war on drugs and war on poverty. Perhaps we'll have our war on immigrants. Some people are already advocating that.
I imagine that most people see some immigration as non threatening, even, I suspect, a small amount of illegal immigration. At some point many see it as a cultural or economic threat. One person crossing the border has a face, is an impoverished, desperate person seeking a better life for himself and his family. A half million of these are a faceless invasion. And that is the reality of perception.
Recent events have raised a red flag, and if these issues aren't addressed, more people, currently neutral on this issue will start to become polarized. The end result will be a protracted conflict and is not going to be pretty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)