when to change from being a hunter-gatherer into being a farmer

There comes a time in the life of too-succesful hunter-gatherer types, when to continue they will destroy the resource base upon which they exist; that is the time to change into being a farmer.

Or else to unfortunatly discover that it is time to perish from insufficient resources and too much refuse accumulation. It may still seem to some of the over-exhuberant members that the game is still to race to grab as much as can be gotten before others grab it. Will they pause to see what they are doing, in time? We can only hope they do, since we are all in this together.

To become a farmer, in this context, means to chose to act to provide an environment that sufficiently nurtures that which is needed to survive.

At this point, knowledge as to what is needed to nurture for survival of resources, needs to be learned. The wider picture needs to be embraced, as much of what needs to be done involves balancing, the taking from one place and adding to another.

Knowledge of the wider picture becomes wisdom. Existence becomes a race to gain the knowledge of the interrelated living processes interacting with energy and materials, placed correctly into the wider picture, then choosing to action such that nurture becomes the field to thrive all.

Acting so as to provide homeostasis in the entire living system of the Earth, while embracing growth and large scale change processes, seems important for a responsible civilization.

Can this be done while there are some large scale factions doing a "Hatfield and McCoys" obsession, wreaking havoc to land and people in their games of who is better than whom and what bunch owns what; and while others are incredibly successful at an obsession with obtaining ownership of far more than they can personally enjoy? These are extremely distracting from the need to be overall ressponsible for the homeostasis of the living system on which we all survive. It is perhaps easier to go to battle against other nations, than it is to nurture a living system of the ocean, say. The glories of waging wars shines brighter in the eyes of people than does the enormous effort to provide a balance of industrialized civilization's effluent with processes that will completely recycle them in the overall system. Will this be a fatal failure to humanity? Is this "somebody else's problem?" Nobody seems to be minding the store.

Maybe this could be done by somehow changing peoples' craving for the excitement of conflict against each other, into an excitement for successful homeostasis of the earth's living system while in growth. This may be analogous to getting a bully to become a responsible citizen. Is it possible, really?

Surely now is the time for mankind to see the civilization being created in the process of being successful hunter-gathering on the planetary ecosystem's resources, and unite at least enough to heavily lean toward the ways that aim toward overall homeostasis of the earth's whole living system.

The what vs the where of things

The what and where of a sound, and the what and where of an object seen, has been reported as being processed separately and sent through two separate neural pathways to the forebrain. "Object" seems to be the uniting item here, in which one set of pathways discerns identity while other set of pathways locates in space. It is "object: what is it" simultaneous with "object: where is it." Is "discerns identity" closely related to "rational linear thinking" while "locating in space" closely related to 'whole pattern awareness," the proverbial "left brain thinking vs. right brain thinking" concept.

A cluster diagram also seems to involve what+where ties, by making objects of circled names that are then tied together in specific ways by the diagram. This crystalizing pattern drawing enables the subsequent writing of vignettes of better flow, than does just writing something out.

Determining the what along with the where of things seems a fundamental brain activity, a two-sided path. One path is "the what" of objects; while the other path is "the where" of the same objects.

Although only indirectly related to this topic, but also involving a similar two-sided neural path, the slightly different perspective pairs of eyes, ears, and hands, probably matches the similarity of the perceptions of the two slightly spatially displaced viewpoints, and then each viewpoint's differences form their commonality, deriving distance data. As the head and eyes move, the brain must create a model of the commonalities and differences that has the head and eye motions proprioceptions and ears' semicircular canals data so as to create a stable model of that which is "out there" relative to the body's position in real time. The location of visually perceived objects can be compared with the locations of auditory sounds to see if is the same source.

There seems to be parallels between those two neural signal flows., the left and right sensory organ sets, and the what-where separation being united elsewhere.

ideas for coping with the climate crisis

Although the climate crisis is bigger than we are, we are a big enough part of the problem that if we instead become part of the solution, it will make a significant difference.

Although government does not now want to be funding large new projects, the government surely has the responsibility to maintain an overview of the relationship of the country to the world, and keep the citizens advised of what is happening and provide suggestions for what individuals and corporate businesses can do to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.

As you know, energy, and civilization's waste products toxic to nature, are major worldwide problems now. Industrial civilization depends on abundant cheap energy, and that has been coming primarily from fossil fuels. This has become increasingly damaging to the world environment such as by the hazards of drilling offshore and in wilderness preserve areas; and by the carbon dioxide, CO2, that is the major waste product from the combustion of petrochemical fuels with the oxygen in our air, and causing a climate crisis.

Investing in building the infrastructure for utilizing the energy derived from the Sun's radiant energy upon the Earth is an important way to lift the burden off the use of fossil fuel resources and the CO2 byproduct that is warming the planet too much. These include modalities now being used, such as hydroelectric powerplants, wind farms, photovoltaic cells, and solar ovens for cooking food.

However, there are ways to greatly reduce the wastage in use of fossil fuels, that can make a significant difference and pay for itself, but takes some very different ways of looking at things. Transportation is one area that looks quite promising for this approach. If we can look at a 10 year time frame for payback plus profit, some possibilities come to mind.

For example, let us imagine that "we" buy the design rights for the 1990 Honda Civic Hatchback from Honda, along with any tooling and assembly data they have remaining on that now obsolete vehicle, 16 years into history. So it ought to be a cheap design purchase; obtaining working ones around the country ought to still be possible for examples. I owned one of them and it got 42 mpg on the freeway commute in the Los Angeles area, and handled great on the road, had a/c cruise control and plenty of room inside; and engine still did not use oil up at 160,000 miles when it was squished in a multi-car wreck from which I walked away. It did have some design flaws in the positioning of the alternator and electrical relays too near the driver, which ought to take less than half a million dollars to modify. In this scenario the government (state or national) would provide loans and enough guidance for the project to re-create this proven vehicle in the context of the need. If they are produceable in multi-million quantities here in the US, cost probably would be maybe $10,000 each or significantly less, a lot less if all vehicles were identical except for paint color. These new vehicles would be offered in direct exchange for any vehicle which gets less than 18 mpg, regardless of age or condition of the gas hog. Thereafter, for each of these new vehicle's 10,000 miles of commute, at say average of 36 mpg, it has saved the consumption of 555 gallons of refined gasoline; at a cost of $2.50 per gallon, that is $1,380 per 10,000 miles driven. If the average vehicle is driven 100,000 miles, that is a savings of $13,800, so the vehicle has long since paid for its cost to the nation, and produced a substantial profit of over 30%. Each individual who did the vehicle exchange has a new vehicle free (or remaining payments to yet make on the former old gas hog vehicle) and is saving $2.50 in gas for every 18 miles driven. But more importantly to the world ecosystem's climate, it has saved the use of 5,500 gallons of fuel per vehicle. For each 1,000,000 vehicles thus replaced and utilized, this is a savings of 5,500,000,000 gallons of refined petrochemical fuel to remain in the world's reserves becoming more precious with time for non-fuel uses; along with preventing its enormous amount of CO2 from being dumped into the atmosphere to add to global weather disruption and resultant sea level rise.

Surely this is a lot wiser than drilling offshore for more of the petrochemical reserve's early extraction and use and CO2 production. Can such a concept be integrated into a free enterprise system? Since it is overall a profit-making activity, that seems reasonable. All it takes is the government's overseeing that the overall purpose is being fulfilled and to provide the financial buffering for the long term 10 year investment in the world's ecosystem future upon which life depends.

James E. D. Cline
jedcline@kestsgeo.com

Baiji river dolfin gone

""We have to accept the fact that the baiji is extinct. We lost the race," said August Pfluger, co-head of the expedition and director of baiji.org, an environmental group dedicated to saving the animal. "

I wonder if this dolphin just did not want to have to leave its home territory of the past 20 million years. Its river home trashed, its food supply stolen, even if by unwitting neighbor species on land, it is not likely that they would consider that a few of those land creatures in their boats would actually be trying to save their lives.

So another intelligent species that has shared this planet home with us for all our time here, has gone extinct from our skillfully intelligent but careless clambor to grab, eat, and excrete. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, it is said.

The Oops-Gotcha ratio

"Diana death a 'tragic accident'" article title brings to mind questions about definitions. In a cause and effect chain of events, where is a beginning and an end?

A legal inquiry ruling has now proclaimed Diana's death was an "accident" by definition. Therefore some things can be concluded regarding chains of events and accidents.

There is little doubt that the fatal collision occurred in the process of a hastily conscripted driver attempting to make an escape from a group of high speed motorcyclists.

The motives of the individuals involved in the fracas remains in murk. But it is well known that paparazzi cyclists were taking nighttime photographs close up of the driver from the front of the vehicle; I have seen one such photograph of the tense pair of men in the front seat as published on cover of a news magazine. Ever have someone shine a bright light directly into your face while you were driving in the dark? It is really hard to see where you are going.

Players of violent sports such as basketball, football and boxing are well aware of the principle of putting pressure on your opponent so as to increase the odds of him making a significant mistake while being forced to focus on a different area. It is an almost implicit motivational principle in such human conflicts.

As for the terrain of the event, the tunnel's location and unsafe configuration, easily knowable.

A pair of guys on a motorcycle who veer in front of you at night and and one shines an intense photography light suddenly in your eyes is likely to cause a driver to veer to avoid collision at the feint. Even somewhat more likely if the suddenly blinded driver had previously had been drinking alcoholic beverages in a relaxed setting.

A pair of part-time movie stuntmen circuitously brought in across the seas for an event hide identity well in motorcycle helmets, wolves in fox's clothing. Did they really exist, hired to pull off a stunt?

The pressure was clearly on, if Dodi and Diana hastily choose a person who was relaxing in a nightclub setting, to be an emergency driver. Were they just trying to get some private time together, or were they fleeing for their lives from a menace not clearly defined? Have you ever gotten that sudden strong sense of some determined assaulters having you in their sights? What did you do then? What if you are a relaxing security man in the cheery atmosphere that has spotted a pair of dangerous men active in the easygoing establishment, and the responsibiity is suddenly yours.

That the driver was doing his best to help them escape is no doubt. Escape from exactly what, is uncertain; but that it involved paparazzi cyclists is fairly certain. That the driver had some alcohol in him (per tests it is said) means he was more likely to make a mistake if pressured and then surprised by something.

That the tunnel's security cameras just happened to not be working at the time, is another curious factor. That is something not easily known by happy-go-lucky paparazzi cyclists. But no doubt some were first on the accident scene's carnage, with their cameras and who knows what else. A muscled fist to make sure? Some really do crave that in-your-face stuff as a triumph.

So it is probably the factor of the level of intent and predetermined strategy involvement in a chain of events that determines if it is an "accident." People endlessly are trying to change the course of history, it is part of the nature of life itself; yet the subject of the change is the significant thing. When the stakes are sufficiently high and not well known by outsiders, the game players sometimes can get really cleverly nasty. "Accident" apparently means a high ratio of "Oops!" to "Gotcha!" (Oops/Gotcha ratio.) But the "conflict" parameter seems the more significant thing.

Yet, per the general principle, if one happens to be in the path of a sniper's bullet, is it an accident that you and it were there at the same time? In a way, yes, since all things are related. Cause and effect chains are hardly simple and have no beginning ... and no end.

Upstart

What happens when someone comes up with an idea for a product that is clearly overwhelmingly better in every way than some big business has been profitably producing? Perhaps this is the worst nightmare for corporations, that vision of somebody not in their control coming up with something far better than that which they have sunk all their investments into.

Sure, they could come to an agreement with the provider of the new concept product, to smoothly ease over to the new way, everybody is a winner. But that does not seem to be the way of the ego, having clawed its way to the top echelons of the corporation. How dare someone try to horn in on their territory that they so rightfully won? They know how to deal with upstarts. And if the upstart's wonderful new conceptual design would obsolete a major part of a wealthy widespread industry, the big egos of all the industries jump into this well-known game.

A working technique is to form high profile organizations and organize conferences which have the key slogans that are actually more appropriate to the upstart's best points. This attracts those who would have been interested in supporting the upstart's concepts and enabling them to be made reality. In the conferences they can have dazzling displays of the older concept products, while showing fine artistic renditions of some other competitive product to that of the upstart's, claiming it is almost ready for market, distracting and wearying the conference attendees, forgetting any glimmers of the upstart's new vision. Even if the naive upstart comes to those conferences attempting to show the new conceptual design, believing the organization would gladly greet this wonderful way to reach their stated goals, the upstart is simply not noticed by the leadership. If the leaders see nothing in the concept, all the other attendees assume that it must be invalid or otherwise not worth even thinking about further. It is a "follow the leader" kind of game, and the leaders have painted themselves well.

The upstart thus gains no resources so as to make the new vision a reality; and historically often dies in poverty and despair, baffled by the tragic treatment given in return for providing them all such a great gift. Such as Meucci, Tesla, and Rife. The upstart just did not get the point that it is egos that control what happens, instead of potential benefits to humanity.

But all is not lost. Even though egos rule, the bigger the better, and played out by the unwritten rules. When the upstart is adequately erased, the big businesses will set their engineering to work in the back room on the new ideas, no mention of where they came from, just do your job that we pay you to do; and the corporation will protect their territory staked out by development effort's investment. A new cycle started. And in the corporation's own good time, and in some fractional measure of the original full concept's ability to provide, the public will be forking out money for the new products. The business boat was not rocked, and the businessmen had a great time doing their sport, how satisfying, what proof of their superiority!

Omnivores

Imagine an anarchy of big corporate business taking over the government. The population says, hey, whatever; anything ought to work. The little businesses are supposed to fill in the cracks between what the big corporations make available. Theory is that in this anarchy if there is any human need whatsoever, there will be a business spring up to provide that need's fulfillment, for a price.

The big businesses secure ownership of select items of the myriad concepts and techniques that go into making any product or service; this is to protect their exclusive right to use the specific concepts and techniques. Each big business has ownership of its domain of those things it takes to create a product or service.

But each big business is required to maximize its profits, to fulfill the demands of its stockholders who only care about the money, and have no interest in the products that made the money for them. The demand to only make the most money, means that the company can only make those products and provide those services that make the most money for them. The products that would make less money are not allowed to be made. Yet they are the only business that can make the products that are within their domain.

Applying the theory, it means if the need for the missing products gets intense enough, its price will go up high enough so that the corporation will switch over to providing that product instead of the other product that previously had been making the most money.

Does this work?

How long can a department store function when the clerks can set the price for whatever is brought to be bought at their counter? The clerks would be making great business, but nobody is minding the store.

In that anarchy of clerks, there are none who prepare for re-stocking nor for making sure the full range of goods and services is available to all customers. No one calculates the whole cost of providing things; in fact, few could do that and fewer care; and they are too busy anyway. Each anarchist business says that it is not their business to consider anything of the big picture; if some resource becomes depleted by their exorbitant use of it, then they will just open up some business that still has resources left in the big picture. Are they their brother's keeper?

Nature has provided a stern lesson for those who would carelessly eat themselves and their neighbors out of house and home; lesson even for those who are omnivores.