I continue in this vein in order to make the point that the signifier “human” suggests a growing opposition to nature. The more technologically sophisticated we get, the more antithetical and harmful our relationship with nature seems to be.

The idea of “human nature” is an oxymoron. Yes, I can accept “animal nature,” but human is a culturally constructed signifier that attempts to assuage any remnants of our animal past. In this, science and religion are the same. The former uses the past and observations of nature in order to better understand it. Why better understand it? To control it,  of course. Therefore, all products of science are about destroying nature or at the very least changing it to suit us. Religion is the same way: it wants to banish the animal, the dark irrational side of the homo sapien — you know the one Satan uses to tempt us? — and uphold the reasonable, rational, and moral side. Samuel Johnson said that “he who thinks rationally, must think morally.” Science and religion hate nature.

So, nature is the enemy. This includes, paradoxically, our own bodies. Just look at the atrocities we perpetrate on our bodies for the sake of being human. My wife introduced me to the problem of “hammer toe.” She does not suffer from this malady, but women who wear high heels in excess can develop this deformity of the foot. And this is a very mild example. I could talk about foot binding, tattooing, piercing, breast augmentation, etc., etc., etc. Even the amount of time and effort we spend in making sure hair grows where it’s supposed to and doesn’t where it’s not is symptomatic of “humanity.” How much time and money does this culture spend on just body hair?

These are the obvious examples. How about our clothing? You can find many web sites that discuss choosing the appropriate clothing for your body shape, but what about our clothing’s influence on the shape to begin with? I had never heard of “muffin tops” in the eighties, nor had I really ever seen a man’s pot belly on a woman before. Was this because of the style of clothing covering these things up, or was it the style affecting how the body developed? What about it, hammer toe?

And speaking of muffin tops, even our concept of healthy is denaturalized. On my drive home Thursday, I was listening to Talk of the Nation‘s show on obesity. Now normally this is one of my favorite shows, but I was appalled at what was being said here. Obesity is a disease? Really? They were actually encouraging surgery as a valid form of weight loss! Talk about hating nature. One “expert” even said that we have to control our portion sizes — that we must not “overeat.” Can we overbreathe? Should we cut out part of our lungs? Overwalking? Let’s cut that leg off right above the knee.

It’s not that we overeat, it’s that we’re eating the wrong things! Our bodies have been programmed to eat over millions of years. You think you can control that? Even with surgery? Eat, people. Just don’t eat the Big Mac and fries. Try some rice, vegetables (no butter!), fruit, grains — you know, the stuff we have lived on for millions of years. Yes, I’m certain our ancestors killed a mammoth once in a while and had a feast akin to the feeding troughs at Golden Corral. But in the interim, what did they do? They ate what they could find from the land and followed the seasons. In modern terms: they ate right and exercised.

Yet, instead of suggesting that eating right and exercise are the only effective ways of controlling one’s weight — something that “people don’t want to hear” and something “that doesn’t help them” — surgery is a viable option. Get part of your stomach cut out so you can continue to drown your lettuce in Ranch sauce, eat Buffalo wings by the dozen, and shove all forms of meat in your meat hole. Instead of saying “lay off the fat,” we say “come  in and let us remove part of your stomach.” Oh, never mind the diabetes and heart disease. Maybe they’ll have artificial hearts soon.

Am I the only one who sees the problem here? Has the human race “progressed” so far that we truly don’t see ourselves fitting into our natural environments any more? You know: the natural force that shaped us gradually over millions of years…

Me in My Vibrams.

Anyway, I meant this entry to introduce my new shoes: I finally got some Vibram Five Fingers. I think that humanity should begin defining itself in relation to — not in opposition to — its environment. Science and technology can augment our lives in many ways, but not if it destroys our surroundings and our relationship to them. Technology should be symbiotic. We should do our best to live with what we have, perhaps making that better and stronger.

This is a problematic idea, and I’ll explore it more in a later entry. However, I think Vibram’s concept for the Five Fingers makes a lot of sense. It brings us closer to our environment, not only in proximity, but in how our bodies work. This technology allows us to go barefoot, but offers protection from the harsher elements of the environment. My Five Fingers protect me from the crappy roads around here, but also let my feet spread out. During my first run earlier today, I used muscles my body had forgotten about. I did get twin blisters on the outsides of my big toes, but hopefully, this is just a temporary inconvenience while I get used to going “barefoot” again. And no technology is perfect, after all.

So I ran five miles in my new shoes. Yes, I altered my gait and stride a bit. My usual form in my old Nikes — and every other running shoe I have ever owned — had me forward on my toes anyway. If I ran “normally” — hitting my heel first and rolling forward — I would get shin splints after about half a mile. I found that if I ran on the front of my feet, I would not get shin splints. This has worked for me for years. I think that’s why I could run further my first time with the Five Fingers than others have been able to: my stride in my old running shoes was closer to what it is in the Vibram’s. Anyway, that’s my theory.

So here begins the experiment. I live a far from symbiotic life, but I’m making little efforts here and there.

Yesterday, in my New Media seminar, we began talking — perhaps a bit off-topic — about how the media has made debates out of issues that are not actively debated by those coming from the same premises. Indeed, if you are to ever have a meaningful discussion that actually goes somewhere, you must start at an agreed-upon location. For example, the scientific community does not debate evolution and global climate change — currently two big controversial topics in the media. Science sees truth from without — something to be observed, measured, calculated, quantified, and reported. If the observations reported by one scientist can be replicated by the community, it becomes a theory. A scientific theory is another word for “local truth.” What a theory states is that all evidence here and now point to this conclusion.

Other truths come from within, like religious truths. As an anti-theist, I do not believe in the reality of these truths, but I do see their power and presence is others’ lives. In fact, it seems like religious truths do more damage to us as human beings than they help. This is not to say that I dislike religious people: I know and admire many people who consider themselves devout. But, to my point. Religious truths, or “faith,” or “belief,” comes from within. These beliefs are usually called Truths by the faithful — they are rules and dicta given by God, never to be questioned, only followed. You know, like commandments.

So when religious Truth and scientific truth seem to be discussing the same thing, they really aren’t because they don’t starting from the same premise. The scientific community does not doubt the billions of pieces of evidence that supports evolution and are therefore not arguing about it. But a religious conviction — stemming from their investment in a particular world view — makes them cloak their creation narrative into a pseudo-scientific sounding approach — Creationism or Intelligent Design — in order to dupe the general public into believing that creation myths hold the same scientific weight as evolution.

And the twenty-four-hour news media falls right into their hands. You gotta fill 24 hours with something.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m a student of literature, so I’m a proponent of narrative, and mythology fascinates me. Stories contain the essence of who we are and who aspire to be, but I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically universal about a narrative. Stories, like science, are situated in a particular place and time — and they always speak to us from there and then. We might, like the Poet asks the Muse, to sing it to us for our time, but we must keep in mind the local hopes and dreams from which narratives flow. Narrative is about translating reality into our language — about explaining the universe around us and how we fit into it.

Both science and religion, therefore, have the same goal. They just begin from a different place. Both narratives are valid, but they shouldn’t pretend to be what they’re not.

Another example of confused narratives is global warming. The theory of global warming is simple: we humans, by rapidly burning fossil fuels, release an excess of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which acts as a greenhouse, trapping excess heat and raising the earth’s global mean temperature. The goal: find out why the world is getting hotter. Science explains it’s because our technologically driven society unearths and burns all the carbon that the earth has buried in the ground over millions of years. The rapid release of carbon dioxide is warming the planet: more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means higher mean global temperatures.

The other narrative claims that global warming is not caused by the rapid burning of fossil fuels — that global temperature change is a naturally occuring phenomenon. Again, this is an invented narrative — one that is not part of the scientific discourse on global warming — but one that has entered the public media space as a viable and logical counterpoint to the facts. One based on faith, if you will. The consequences range from sad to sadder.

Several years ago, I had a discussion with Mr. Al (that’s what my wife calls him), a local friend of my wife’s family. Mr. Al suggested that he and I meet to discuss ways that I might win over Autumn’s father. While the bulk of this story is one for another blog, Mr. Al told me about the time that Jesus appeared to him in his truck. If I remember correctly, Mr. Al was having profound doubts about his Christian faith, and he was driving down a country road in the middle of a moral crisis. It was a stormy day, but suddenly the clouds broke, and a ray of sunshine seemed to shower his truck with heavenly light. Mr. Al noticed that Jesus sat next to him in the passenger’s seat. Mr. Al stoped the truck, and Jesus told him not to veer from the path. “Since that day,” Mr. Al waved some cancelled checks in his hand, “I have given as much as I can to the church.” The checks did have pretty sizable sums printed on them. Mr. Al has done well for himself. And Jesus.

The point of the lesson was clear: his investment in this narrative is extensive. One does not just walk away from such a huge outpouring of venture capital.

Our investment in our way of life is important. Our economy thrives on the burning of fossil fuels, and those who have controlled the means are not willing to consider alternatives. So let’s muddle the debate, mix our metaphors, just say no.

But, Jerry, you started this entry talking about how cold it is and you end with global warming? In fact, this is the coldest winter I remember. Well?

Hm, that is weird. Brrr.

Put your politics aside for a day, and consider what would not only help the world, but would also help us. Check out Repower America. They want to Repower America with 100% clean electricity within 10 years. This goal means new industries with high-paying jobs. It means lower energy costs. It means replacing coal and foreign oil with clean domestic sources. It is a vital step toward protecting the environment and solving the climate crisis. It means considering what we do to the planet that we need for our survival.

After all, Earth Day is really about our survival, not the Earth’s.

President Obama met with Al Gore to discuss these environmental matters. He stated:

The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over. We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way.

While I’m thankful that there’s finally someone in the white house (OK, soon…) who will actually pay attention to real science, I’m not sure the Congress will do the same. This seems evident by the Big 3 fiasco. Here is an opportunity for us to really make a difference in the environmental impact of the American auto industry, but I’m afraid we’re distracted by economics. They should not get a cent unless environment trumps economics. The farcical quality of these hearings is unbearable. People keep going on and on about jobs that are in danger: well, jobs would still be there if we refocused the industry toward a greener future. There might even be more jobs. Maybe Americans need to be weened from their car addiction anyway?

We have less than 10 years to drastically reduce the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Hopefully that will begin with Obama.

I’ve got gardens growing, got quiet days
clothes on my back, food on my plate
got friends to help me if I call for them
don’t need anything I don’t have

got eyes to see this beautiful land
feet to take me where I want to stand
if there’s work to be done, I’ve got these two strong hands
I don’t need anything I don’t have
I don’t need anything I don’t have

some years the rains don’t come
some years floods clear out the plains
but if those waters wash this town away
I would still have enough if she was with me

I’ve got a roof overhead, stars if I choose
but I’ve no need to fly, I’ve got no itch to move
got almost nothing, but I understand
that I don’t need anything that I don’t have
I don’t need anything that I don’t have

–Glen Phillips

I heard this tune on the way into my office this morning. It seemed to speak to me about concerns I have had of late — some musical serendipity. Thanks, Glen.

The US makes up 5% of the world’s population, but we consume 25% of the world’s natural resources. Our prosperity creates a disparity in the rest of the world. We need to stop buying so much junk. When we do purchase something, we should think about where it comes from and where it will go when we’re finished with it. Do we really need it? We need to reduce consumption to improve the planet’s ecology.

We can no longer afford to remain blind to the consequences of our consumer culture. Our planet will survive; it’s we who will perish.

This is telling:

When I was vice president, I initiated a program called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. The federal government invested over a billion dollars in partnership with the Big Three to focus on the accelerated development of advanced high-efficiency vehicles. But as soon as they felt they were off the hook at the end of 2000, they pulled the plug and walked away.

And now they want a bail-out. I’m glad we didn’t fold so easily this time. We cannot keep up this American business-as-usual practice wen it comes to the environment. The cost is just too high.

Honda unveiled its new Insight at the LA motor show last week, and it looks pretty sharp. It slated to go on-sale this spring and uses a new technology called “Eco Assist”:

Eco Assist combines multiple functions: the driver-activated ECON mode that optimizes control of the continuously variable transmission, engine and related powertrain components to conserve fuel; and a feedback function that uses speedometer background color to provide real-time guidance on environmentally responsible driving. An economy scoring function further provides feedback about current driving techniques, as well as feedback on cumulative, long-term driving style.

Sounds pretty cool, and it looks pretty cool — like a combination of the original Insight and a Prius. The feedback mentioned above is like an emissions score that “encourages drivers to take an interest in developing fuel efficient driving habits over the long term,” states the press release. It would be too slick if Honda added Wi-Fi to the car, so it could automatically upload the pertinent information to a tracking web site — with user permission, of course. That way, users could post a badge on their blogs, for instance.

Apparently the price point is going to be very competitive at around $20K. We’ll see. There are no other details, like MPG ratings, on Honda’s web site yet, but Wikipedia suggests that the MPG will be comparable to the first generation’s.

Now, if only I can talk Autumn into getting rid of her sorry Beetle.

Along similar lines, BMW announced that they will soon begin importing two diesel vehicles to the US: the X5 and the 335d. Check ‘em out. They are both sharp, and both get pretty good milage for being straight-up diesels. Still, I think I’d go for a hybrid.

On the way into work this morning, NPR had a small snippet about what the world will probably be like in 2025. When they say “the world,” they mean human affairs, of course. Well, the US has fallen from its mighty perch, being replaced primarily by southeast Asian countries. I assume they mean economically — as we can see that happening now. Despite the current grim outlook for multi-national conglomerates and corporations, they are expected to play a larger role in global issues, alongside organized crime. And terrorism isn’t going anywhere. Surprise there.

Oh, yeah, and we’ll be making our way toward more environmentally friendlier technologies and away from fossil fuels. They call this an “encouraging” aspect of the report. Well, according to Mark Lynas‘ book Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, that will be ten years too late to avert a potentially catastrophic shift in climate change. And we seem to be still oblivious. From his conclusion:

The conclusion of this book is that we have only seven years [that's 2015] left to peak global emissions before facing escalating dangers of runaway global warming. I am the first to admit that this target looks hopelessly unattainable. (281)

Based on our current political concerns, I would have to agree with his less-than-optimistic prognosis. For example, the current economic crisis in the US has many once-mighty companies struggling, including the Big Three car manufacturers. Well, I can’t claim to understand the reasoning behind any of this economic bailout business other than it seems to be one guy in the Bush’s administration with a lot of money that big corporations “need” to prosper. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. Also what doesn’t make any sense is the idea that more money given to these ailing car manufacturers (that can’t seem to make anything close to competing with Japanese and German companies) is a good idea without oversight. I think Michael Moore has it right.

Why can’t part of the bailout stipulate that these guys have to revolutionize their industry — maybe even by resurrecting something that you teased us with back in the 1990s. I know, I can already hear the arguments. Save ‘em. As Lynas suggests, we need drastic measures here, both if we want to save our economy and our planet. Business-as-usual will be the likely death of us. All of us, even those at the top.

I’m reminded of a point Al Gore made in An Inconvenient Truth. Many who argue against the reality of global warming will contest it for economic reasons: it just much more comfortable, convenient, and cost effective to practice business-as-usual. Gore shows the absurdity of this balancing act: gold bars on one side of the scale; the whole earth on the other. Yes, the gold bars will potentially help us now practically (though I have my doubts), and they are a powerful symbol for the mythical might of this country. Yet, without the planet that we live on — you know, the only one we have — economics, and all those other important issues that occupy our energy and attention — will all be irrelevant. The death of the planet trumps them all. Period.

We need to wake up and pay attention. We are in big trouble.

Truthout reports that the bill (HR 6899) provides cover for democrats who hope to get reelected by constituents who are increasingly calling for more drilling:

After months of debate about expanding offshore oil and gas drilling, the House passed legislation Tuesday that could open up large areas off U.S. coastlines to energy production.

Great: another pointless and partisan piece of legislation that wastes more time and money and doesn’t even address the issue. We need innovation, not more drilling. The Center for American Progress suggests that most Americans agree:

Voters were asked what was “the best way to help solve the energy crisis and make America less dependent on foreign oil”: new nuclear power plants; drilling offshore and in Alaska; developing renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biofuels; releasing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve; or mandating higher mileage standards for cars.

Developing renewable energy sources was ranked far ahead of all the other choices in all four states. In Colorado, renewable energy was deemed the best approach by 54 percent, with the second choice (drilling) far behind at 21 percent. In Michigan and Minnesota, it was 56 percent renewable energy, followed by drilling at 18 percent. And in Wisconsin, it was 59 percent for renewable energy, followed by nuclear power at a mere 9 percent.

Yet, if this is the case, can both reports be correct? Seriously, is drilling for more oil really the change that we need, McCain? Obama? Aren’t we Americans the pioneers who should invest in renewable, clean energy sources. I know that’s a radical idea, but we have to start somewhere. Shouldn’t we look to the future. I know that some aren’t convinced of the immediate threat of global warming despite the scientific evidence (I’ve often wondered why many so vehemently oppose the reality of our environmental impact — surely even common sense tells us that pumping poisons into a closed system will eventually kill that system).

However, we certainly cannot ignore the threats and disastrous impacts that our lust for oil has had on the environment. Remember the Exxon Valdez? Or these others?

Al Gore, too, is flustered about the drill-happy politicos and public. In a recent email, he asks for our help:

Skyrocketing energy prices. The climate crisis. Unraveling financial markets. Wars that just happen to be in places with a lot of oil. These are all just different faces of exactly the same thing. As I’ve said in the past, we’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the future of human civilization. And every bit of that has to change.

We all know what we have to do. Ask anybody on the street and they’ll tell you. We need to “Repower America” — invest in ourselves, here at home, with clean, economical energy technologies that we know work. And be the global leader as these technologies take off around the world.

And ask anyone, and they’ll also tell you why it isn’t happening: the oil and coal lobbies — and the politicians who do their bidding.

Check out the video at We Can Solve It, and give a few bucks if you can.