Are Humans Naturally Monogamous? (Americans Disagree)

 

The chart above reflects the results of a YouGov Poll -- done on August 30th of a nationwide sample of 9,203 adults.

Most Say Climate Change Is Caused By Human Activity

 

The chart above reflects the results of the latest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between July 29th and August 1st of a nationwide sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,324 registered voters). The margin of error for adults wa 3.2 points, and for registered voters is 3 points.

Are Humans The Smartest Or Stupidest Species?

Whether you believe humans were created in their current form or are the result of millions of years of evolution, people seem to agree on one thing -- that humans are the smartest members of the animal kingdom.

After all, humans have built amazing things -- the Pyramids, modern skyscrapers, computers and the internet, machines that fly and some that even go to other planets. The list is endless of human accomplishments.

But a case can be made for the opposite view -- that humans are the stupidest members of the animal kingdom.

They have divided themselves into tribes and nations, creating arbitrary boundaries on the planet. And they use those boundaries to wage war with other tribes and nations. Millions have been killed in those wars, usually over greed or religion. And even within those tribes and boundaries, humans kill and maim each other. They do this even though common sense would dictate they should be helping each other.

Humans discriminate against one another because of silly reasons (like skin color, national origin, or religious preference) -- each convinced he/she is somehow better than others.

Humans, through misuse of natural elements, are in the process of making their planet uninhabitable -- deleting the forests that provide their oxygen, dirtying the water they need, and changing the climate to produce more storms, floods, droughts, and fires. And refusing to pressure their politicians into stopping or mitigating these disastrous things.

Humans allow poverty and neglect to exist -- even in countries with the wealth to eliminate both.

And humans refuse to believe their scientists and medical professional -- refusing to stop a killer pandemic by getting vaccinated or wearing masks. 

So, which is it? Are humans the smartest or stupidest species? I think a case can be made that they are both -- and unless they enhance the former and eliminate the latter, they may not survive very far into the future. The Earth doesn't care. She will survive with or without us. 

Humans must save themselves. Can they do it? They are capable of saving themselves, but do they have the will to do so? It will require putting a lot of our ignorant ideas behind us, and working together to the benefit of all. Frankly, I'm not sure we are that smart!

Shades Of Gray

(Photo is by F. Martin Ramin for The Wall Street Journal.)

One of the biggest stories in the media in the last few days has been the Sean Penn Interview with "El Chapo". Many want to denigrate Penn for doing the interview, and writing an article that portrays the drug lord as not being without any redeeming values. Penn stated his reason for doing the interview:

"As an American citizen, I'm drawn to explore what may be inconsistent with the portrayals our government and media brand upon their declared enemies."

Of course, Penn is right. Our government (and our media) tend to portray those they don't like as being totally evil. That is seldom, if ever, the reality. Is El Chapo a criminal? Yes. Should he be punished? Yes. But is he totally without any socially redeeming qualities. No, and that is true of all of those who are demonized by our government and press.

Why do they do that? Because it appeals to the mindset of many, if not most, Americans. The American public is prone to view the world as black or white (totally good or totally evil). On one hand, they put those in some professions (police, religious figures, doctors) on a pedestal, and refuse to believe they are capable of wrong-doing. On the other, they tend to view criminals as terrible, and incapable of doing good. Neither is true. All are human beings capable of doing both good and bad (and every human has done both). While some humans are better than others (doing more good), we are all some shade of gray -- neither being as pure as the driven snow or as dark as a moonless night.

And we tend to view our politics (and politicians) the same way -- as being without fault, or being totally useless and wrong. For instance, right-wingers see free enterprise as being the ultimate good (but fail to realize that it must have curbs and regulations to prevent the rich from abusing the poor). And left-wingers see regulation as being good for all (but fail to realize that some regulation can actually inhibit individual freedoms). Neither is black or white -- but some shade of gray.

The same is true of our politicians. There is no such thing as a politician without "warts" (faults). Like the rest of us, they are just human -- and they do good and make mistakes. Anyone who looks hard enough can find something they don't like about any politician. The best we can do is support someone we view as being the lightest shade of gray.

Americans (and probably many in other countries as well) like to see the world and events as black and white. But that is not reality. We live in a gray world. That does not mean we should not try to make it as light a shade of gray as possible. We definitely should. But at the same time, we must realize that everything is a shade of gray -- and nothing is totally perfect nor totally evil.

We may not like that -- but that's the way it is.

Climate Change Is NOT The Only Problem With Rising CO2

There has been much discussion of the effect of greenhouse gases on global climate change (especially carbon dioxide, which is the primary greenhouse gas). And this should be enough to cause humans to take action to control the rising CO2 levels (which is currently at 400 parts per million, and rising). But now there is evidence that climate change is not the only problem associated with elevated levels of CO2. Studies now show that elevated CO2 levels also affect the cognitive and decision-making abilities of humans. This is some pretty scary stuff, and I urge you to read the entire article at Think Progress.

Here is part of that thought-provoking article:

In a landmark public health finding, a new study from the Harvard School of Public Health finds that carbon dioxide (CO2) has a direct and negative impact on human cognition and decision-making. These impacts have been observed at CO2 levels that most Americans — and their children — are routinely exposed to today inside classrooms, offices, homes, planes, and cars. 

Carbon dioxide levels are inevitably higher indoors than the baseline set by the outdoor air used for ventilation, a baseline that is rising at an accelerating rate thanks to human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels. So this seminal research has equally great importance for climate policy, providing an entirely new public health impetus for keeping global CO2 levels as low as possible. . .

Significantly, the Harvard study confirms the findings of a little-publicized 2012 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) study, “Is CO2 an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance.” That study found “statistically significant and meaningful reductions in decision-making performance” in test subjects as CO2 levels rose from a baseline of 600 parts per million (ppm) to 1000 ppm and 2500 ppm.

Both the Harvard and LBNL studies made use of a sophisticated multi-variable assessment of human cognition used by a State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate Medical University team, led by Dr. Usha Satish. Both teams raised indoor CO2 levels while leaving all other factors constant. The findings of each team were published in the peer-reviewed open-access journal Environmental Health Perspectives put out by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a part of NIH.

The new study, led by Dr. Joe Allen, Director of Harvard’s Healthy Buildings program, and Dr. John Spengler, Professor of Environmental Health and Human Habitation at Harvard, used a lower CO2 baseline than the earlier study. They found that, on average, a typical participant’s cognitive scores dropped 21 percent with a 400 ppm increase in CO2. . .

The researchers explain, “The largest effects were seen for Crisis Response, Information Usage, and Strategy, all of which are indicators of higher level cognitive function and decision-making.” The entire article is a must-read as is the LBNL-SUNY study. . .

All of this new research is consistent with — and actually helps explain — literally dozens of studies in the past two decades that find low to moderate levels of CO2 have a negative impact on productivity, learning, and test scores. See here for a research note and bibliography of some 20 studies and review articles.

For most of human evolution and modern history, CO2 levels in the air were in a fairly narrow and low range of 180 to 280 parts per million. Also, during the vast majority of that time, humans spent most of their time outdoors or in enclosures that were open (like a cave). Even once humans built dwellings, those were not tightly sealed as modern buildings are. So even though we generate and breathe out CO2, homo sapiens were not generally exposed to high, sustained CO2 levels.

But in recent decades, outdoor CO2 levels have risen sharply, to a global average of 400 ppm. Moreover, measured outdoor CO2 levels in major cities from Phoenix to Rome can be many tens of ppm higher — up to 100 ppm or more — than the global average. That’s because CO2 “domes” form over many cities primarily due to CO2 emissions from traffic and local weather conditions. 

The outdoor CO2 level is the baseline for indoor levels. In buildings — the places where most people work and live — CO2 concentrations are considerably higher than outdoors. CO2 levels indoors that are 200 ppm to 400 ppm higher than outdoors are commonplace — not surprising since the design standard for CO2 levels in most buildings is 1000 ppm. In addition, that differential increases when more people are crammed into a space and when the ventilation is not adequate. As the Harvard researchers point out, in recent decades, buildings have become more tightly sealed, and there has been less exchange of inside air with fresh outside air. . .

But the implications for climate policy are stark. We are at 400 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 today outdoors globally — and tens of ppm higher in many major cities. We are rising at a rate of 2+ ppm a year, a rate that is accelerating. Significantly, we do not know the threshold at which CO2 levels begin to measurably impact human cognition.

The LBNL study found a measurable negative impact on human cognition at 1000 ppm. The Harvard researchers had a more comprehensive study that found significant negative impact at 930 ppm. Moreover, many measurements made by the Harvard team point to a much lower threshold, as the top figure shows. Equally important, the researchers found “The exposure-response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used in this study.” So the impact threshold may be quite below 930 ppm. Clearly more research needs to be done to solve this detective story.

The latest IEQ research does offer strong suggestions that the threshold could be near (or possibly even below) levels the entire world could experience outdoors over the next hundred years — levels that are essentially irreversible for centuries.

As one clue to where that threshold may be, we can turn to recent research from Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) for the U.S. General Services Administration, which found a threshold of about 600 ppm. At 1,282 workstations in 64 diverse buildings across the country, CMU measured CO2 levels and surveyed occupancy perception of air quality. . .

We have to do everything we can to keep outdoor CO2 levels below 600 ppm because something serious starts happening then.

Note in the chart below that we are currently heading toward levels of outdoor global CO2 that will affect humans. If we do nothing (which is what we are currently doing), the level by 2100 will be about 910 ppm. If the countries actually do what they say they want to do, the level will be about 675 ppm by 2100 -- a level that is still far too high (and will both cause serious global climate change, and significantly affect human cognitive and decision-making abilities). We must take radical action to protect both the environment and humanity. Not doing so is simply unthinkable.

Rachel Dolezal

I can't exaggerate how sick I am of hearing about Rachel Dolezal (pictured at left) -- the former Seattle NAACP head that is accused of posing as a Black person. I can understand all the hullabaloo on social media. Social media has a huge number of idiots on it that will go crazy over any little thing -- especially if it doesn't concern them.

But the major media is another matter. They are supposed to be journalists -- not gossip-mongers. And yet they won't let this non-story die. Just yesterday, I saw a major media source acting like this was a real news story -- and accusing Ms. Dolezal of being a "race appropriator", or even worse, being guilty of "race theft".

Really? My first thought is why should we care how Ms. Dolezal lives her life. Did she commit a crime? NO. Did she hurt someone else? NO. In a free country, which her detractors claim this is, aren't people supposed to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit? YES.

This whole thing reminds me of the Southern racists who get all bent out of shape when they think an African-American is trying to live as though they were white. Why should any of us care about how another person lives their life, or how they identify themselves?

Maybe it's time for a refresher course on the concept of race. Race is a concept that has no basis in reality. It is a concept invented by White Europeans centuries ago to justify their theft of land, people, and resources in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. And it was continued in this country to justify genocide, slavery, and segregation.

Yes, humans come in all shapes and sizes -- and they have different skin colors, hair colors, and eye colors. None of that makes us different. We are all just members of the human race (homo sapiens). Classifying someone because of their skin color makes no more sense than classifying them because of eye or hair color. It's just stupid, and it's about time we moved past the outdated (and ridiculous) concept of race.

Rachel Doleful did nothing wrong. In fact, we should all be as guilty of fighting for human and equal rights as she is. Her detractors need to get a life of their own, and get the heck out of her life. We have a lot of real problems in this country. How Rachel Dolezal lives her life is not one of them.

The End Of Human History ?

(This photo of Noam Chomsky is by Duncan Rawlinson, and was found at flicker.com.)

Noam Chomsky is always worth listening to or reading, and I found this article (from the website of Bill Moyers) of his particularly thought-provoking:

It is not pleasant to contemplate the thoughts that must be passing through the mind of the Owl of Minerva as the dusk falls and she undertakes the task of interpreting the era of human civilization, which may now be approaching its inglorious end.

The era opened almost 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent, stretching from the lands of the Tigris and Euphrates, through Phoenicia on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean to the Nile Valley, and from there to Greece and beyond. What is happening in this region provides painful lessons on the depths to which the species can descend.

The land of the Tigris and Euphrates has been the scene of unspeakable horrors in recent years. The George W. Bush-Tony Blair aggression in 2003, which many Iraqis compared to the Mongol invasions of the 13th century, was yet another lethal blow. It destroyed much of what survived the Bill Clinton-driven UN sanctions on Iraq, condemned as “genocidal” by the distinguished diplomats Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, who administered them before resigning in protest. Halliday and von Sponeck’s devastating reports received the usual treatment accorded to unwanted facts.

One dreadful consequence of the US-UK invasion is depicted in a New York Times “visual guide to the crisis in Iraq and Syria”: the radical change of Baghdad from mixed neighborhoods in 2003 to today’s sectarian enclaves trapped in bitter hatred. The conflicts ignited by the invasion have spread beyond and are now tearing the entire region to shreds.

Much of the Tigris-Euphrates area is in the hands of ISIS and its self-proclaimed Islamic State, a grim caricature of the extremist form of radical Islam that has its home in Saudi Arabia. Patrick Cockburn, a Middle East correspondent for The Independent and one of the best-informed analysts of ISIS, describes it as “a very horrible, in many ways fascist organization, very sectarian, kills anybody who doesn’t believe in their particular rigorous brand of Islam.”

Cockburn also points out the contradiction in the Western reaction to the emergence of ISIS: efforts to stem its advance in Iraq along with others to undermine the group’s major opponent in Syria, the brutal Bashar Assad regime. Meanwhile a major barrier to the spread of the ISIS plague to Lebanon is Hezbollah, a hated enemy of the US and its Israeli ally. And to complicate the situation further, the US and Iran now share a justified concern about the rise of the Islamic State, as do others in this highly conflicted region.

Egypt has plunged into some of its darkest days under a military dictatorship that continues to receive US support. Egypt’s fate was not written in the stars. For centuries, alternative paths have been quite feasible, and not infrequently, a heavy imperial hand has barred the way.

After the renewed horrors of the past few weeks it should be unnecessary to comment on what emanates from Jerusalem, in remote history considered a moral center.

Eighty years ago, Martin Heidegger extolled Nazi Germany as providing the best hope for rescuing the glorious civilization of the Greeks from the barbarians of the East and West. Today, German bankers are crushing Greece under an economic regime designed to maintain their wealth and power.

The likely end of the era of civilization is foreshadowed in a new draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the generally conservative monitor of what is happening to the physical world.

The report concludes that increasing greenhouse gas emissions risk “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems” over the coming decades. The world is nearing the temperature when loss of the vast ice sheet over Greenland will be unstoppable. Along with melting Antarctic ice, that could raise sea levels to inundate major cities as well as coastal plains.

The era of civilization coincides closely with the geological epoch of the Holocene, beginning over 11,000 years ago. The previous Pleistocene epoch lasted 2.5 million years. Scientists now suggest that a new epoch began about 250 years ago, the Anthropocene, the period when human activity has had a dramatic impact on the physical world. The rate of change of geological epochs is hard to ignore.

One index of human impact is the extinction of species, now estimated to be at about the same rate as it was 65 million years ago when an asteroid hit the Earth. That is the presumed cause for the ending of the age of the dinosaurs, which opened the way for small mammals to proliferate, and ultimately modern humans. Today, it is humans who are the asteroid, condemning much of life to extinction.

The IPCC report reaffirms that the “vast majority” of known fuel reserves must be left in the ground to avert intolerable risks to future generations. Meanwhile the major energy corporations make no secret of their goal of exploiting these reserves and discovering new ones.

A day before it ran a summary of the IPCC conclusions, The New York Times reported that huge Midwestern grain stocks are rotting so that the products of the North Dakota oil boom can be shipped by rail to Asia and Europe.

One of the most feared consequences of anthropogenic global warming is the thawing of permafrost regions. A study in Science magazine warns that “even slightly warmer temperatures [less than anticipated in coming years] could start melting permafrost, which in turn threatens to trigger the release of huge amounts of greenhouse gases trapped in ice,” with possible “fatal consequences” for the global climate.

Arundhati Roy suggests that the “most appropriate metaphor for the insanity of our times” is the Siachen Glacier, where Indian and Pakistani soldiers have killed each other on the highest battlefield in the world. The glacier is now melting and revealing “thousands of empty artillery shells, empty fuel drums, ice axes, old boots, tents and every other kind of waste that thousands of warring human beings generate” in meaningless conflict. And as the glaciers melt, India and Pakistan face indescribable disaster.

Sad species. Poor Owl.

Americans Are Still Unwilling To Accept Global Climate Change Is Caused By Human Activity

The chart above might give those of us some hope that the seriousness of global climate change (commonly called "global warming") is finally beginning to sink in to the American public. It shows that 63% of the public believes the effect is real, and believes it is a serious problem. But believing it is a problem, and being willing to do something about it (or believing something can be done about it) are two different things -- and that is the problem with the American public.

It turns out that the public still has not accepted the fact that global climate change is caused by human activity (specifically the overuse of fossil fuels that cause a build-up of CO2 -- a greenhouse gas). As you can see from the chart below, while more people now believe it is due to human activity rather than to a naturally-occurring planetary trend, those accepting it is due to human activity still do not make up a majority of the public (with the high point being 48% in July of 2012). Currently it rests at 44%.

That's not good enough. Until a significant majority of Americans admit global climate change is caused by human activity, the government will not do anything about it. There is too much pressure from the polluting corporations for Congress to act without significant pressure from the general public.

It's starting to look like greed is going to win out over common sense -- and that we are going to be the first generation to leave those who come after us with a worse world than the one we inherited.

These charts were made from information contained in Rasmussen Polls -- the latest one being conducted on February 18th and 19th of 1,000 nationwide likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points.

Progress ?

I found this picture on the blog of Yellowdog Granny, and I have to admit it is rather thought-provoking -- and troubling. Mankind likes to think it is better than the other animals, more evolved. Are we? Isn't there something at least a little bit wrong about caging our cousins, and then enjoying a field trip to see them in that cage? Could this be why so many people want to deny evolution -- because if it is true (and I believe it is), then how can we justify the way we treat other animals (animals that once had a common ancestor with us)?

I'm not a vegan or vegetarian, and I don't like the tactics of groups like PETA. But I do think humans have an obligation to treat others animals kindly, and to avoid any kind of cruelty -- and caging other animals for our own amusement strikes me as a kind of gratuitous cruelty.

Human Worth Is Not Determined By Money

The great Bob Marley is absolutely right about this -- and I wish more people in this country (and worldwide) realized it. Far too many people think their worth as a human is tied to the amount of wealth they can accumulate, and they judge others by the same yardstick. But the truth is that the ability to make a lot of money says nothing about how good a person is -- and far too many of the rich either got their money through nefarious means, or inherited it from someone else. People should be judged by the content of their character -- not their wallet or bank account.

The Destroyer

When considered on a geological scale of time, mankind doesn't look too good. We've only been here for a tiny fraction of the Earth's history, but we have done a remarkable amount of damage. And the sad part is that we show neither the desire nor the ability to change.

A Pledge For All

Isn't it time for everyone to realize that we are all human and we all share the same planet -- the only planet we have (which is an important fact, since we seem to be trying to destroy each other and the planet with our endless wars and misuse of our planetary resources). It may be popular to brag about your country being better than other countries, and its citizens being better than citizens of other countries -- but it is also self-destructive and rather silly. We should be coming together to help each other and to save the only planet we have. It's a sad commentary on humanity that most people don't want to do that.

All Lives Are Precious

This seems to be the attitude of too many Americans. It is certainly the attitude of our government and the giant corporations who run it. When did the majority in this country lose its compassion? How can we possibly justify the belief that some lives (ours) are worth more than others (those living outside our own borders)? Why is it so hard to believe the evil that belief represents? Aren't the lives of ALL people equally precious?

People Have No Right To Water ?

This is what corporations think of poor people -- that they should have no right to water. This CEO actually came out and said what many CEOs believe -- that a resource that is necessary for life should be denied to those who cannot afford to pay for it. He believes that water is just a commodity to be bought and sold. How long are we going to put up with this corporate attitude? Is it even human to deny poor people a basic necessity of life because they don't have the money to buy it?

Life

We humans like to think we are the most important thing that ever happened. The truth is that we are just another animal, albeit a thinking one, that the Earth could do just fine without (probably better considering the damage we have done to our native planet). It should make us just a bit more humble to know that other life could flourish without us, while the humble insect is required for life to exist.

Infected

We humans, at least the modern variety, are probably the most dangerous thing this planet has encountered. We seem determined to kill off all life on the planet -- and we do it for money, corporate profits. Because we seem to have accepted the lie that nothing, not even life itself, is as important as corporate profits. And the idea of humans being a planetary infection is very fitting -- because our replication is damaging the planet just like a bacterial or viral infection damages the human body. The shame of it is that it doesn't have to be that way. Most of us just don't seem to care.

Contagion

(This bit of humor was found on the blog of Yellowdog Granny. You can click on the picture to get a bigger version that's easier to read.) Sometimes I think this is true. Instead of fulfilling our role as the inheritors of this planet, we seem bound and determined to be its destroyers. The only real question is whether we destroy it (and ourselves) before we get to other worlds, and begin their destruction also. The really sad part is that man possesses the intelligence and ability to save our planet (and ourselves). We just refuse to do so.