What If We Were Good For the Earth?

Here is a brief, 10 minute, video of Michael Pollan discussing Joel Salatin’s Polyface Farms, complete with stats on the farm’s annual yield, and a dream at the end:

Is it possible that 7 billion humans, if we tried, could be GOOD for the planet? Not if we’re consumers, but if we are stewards, perhaps. Hard to know what the planet’s carrying capacity for human stewards would be. We know it can’t accommodate 7 billion consumers. Maybe we can change our relationship with the planet, and heal the damage we and our pdecessors have caused …

A Giant New Plutonium Complex (In My Backyard) at Los Alamos

Despite President Obama’s campaign rhetoric of a world without nuclear weapons, despite the recent catastrophe at Japan’s Fukushima complex, and despite the new START nuclear arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia last February, it seems the desire among our leaders for nuclear power and nuclear weaponry remains as strong today as it was at the height of the Cold War. What’s just as disturbing, though, is the disregard our government shows for any input from its citizenry — pro or con.

In a recent Santa Fe Radio Café interview with Greg Mello, co-founder of the Los Alamos Study Group, an Albuquerque-based watchdog organization that monitors the goings-on at New Mexico’s Los Alamos National Labs, this sober, fact-loving, almost phlegmatic “Joe Friday” of an activist outlined very clearly both the potential gains and losses (and for whom) of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s plans for a new Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) facility at LANL, before going completely off character to point out the utter neglect that the Department of Energy (among many other government agencies) has for any due process.

Mello said that the main purpose of this $4-12 billion plutonium lab, which the NNSA claims “would provide vitally essential technical support capabilities to NNSA’s national security mission,” is basically “making weapons of mass destruction.” Craftily-languaged in the NNSA proposal as “plutonium pits,” Mello says that the CMRR building’s main purpose is “to increase the nuclear capacity of LANL as a whole and to manufacture plutonium plants.” The warhead cores of these “plants,” says Mello, would be “the successors to the bombs used on Nagasaki. They’d each have a yield that’s 50 times greater than the bomb used there in World War II.”

Contrary, then, to the popular perception of Obama as anti-nuclear proliferation, his endorsement of this CMRR facility — and the facility’s true purpose — puts him entirely in line with that of his predecessor, George W., who originally championed this project. It’s part of a deal, said Mello, between Obama and the Republicans: you can have your nuclear-arms treaty and our 67 votes for it, but only if you follow through on a nuclear arms buildup. “We just signed a nuclear weapons treaty,” said Mello, “but we’re spending billions of dollars to make new ones. It doesn’t improve the credibility of our nonproliferation diplomacy.” Indeed.

via Mary-Charlotte Domandi: A Giant New Plutonium Complex at Los Alamos.

Oil? Nitrogen Fertilizer? Choose Your Poison.

Ahh, youth.


A lot of dolphins have been dying in the Gulf of Mexico.

Massive increase in dolphin deaths

Over 500 dolphins have washed up, dead, along the Gulf of Mexico since last year’s Deepwater Horizon cataclysm caused by BP. While scientists are not sure why so many dolphins have suddenly become prey, en masse, to an infection that has historically affected only a dolphin every now and then, inquiries are focusing on the effects of millions of gallons of crude oil that gushed into the Gulf last year before the well was mostly closed. One report says 580 dolphins have died, with newborns being most seriously affected.

They might also consider its effect in concert with the effects of the tons of nitrogen fertilizer that are washed down the Mississippi from farmlands every year, that have caused a huge dead zone (six to seven thousand square miles) in the Gulf that cannot support life. Obviously, this is not just a concern to environmentalists, but also to fishermen and women whose livelihoods depend on harvesting shrimp and other sea life.

Did I mention that BP was just given a new permit to drill in the Gulf? Yessirree.

Joe Versus the New York Times

The New York Times can be depended upon to publish special sections on some of the most pressing, interesting or merely popular issues of the day. They just can’t, apparently, be depended on to do them justice. As Joe Romm points out, their section on energy is a case in point.

First, it is a business section. Of course, we all have understood that, if you want to make a case for any issue in this country, you have to make it with dollar signs attached. So we can give them a pass on that. It’s standard operating procedure. But Romm points out many contradictions and blind spots, especially in the article on solar energy. It seems the Times’ author, Matt Wald, has only heard of Solyndra’s embarrassing collapse when it comes to solar power and its effect on the economy and the environment.

It’s like every reporter saying unemployment is 9%, when it is, in actuality – and this is no secret, it’s in monthly government reports – 16%. In this case, the question of energy is treated as merely a business question, first and only.

No, it is not. Energy is a question about the environment, and the possibility of a human future. Get a clue, New York Times. If you want the straight scoop, read Joe’s article.

Be Fruitful and Multiply

Like Rabbits

“According to the UN, the world’s population is due to hit 7 billion on 31 October. It took until 1804 for humanity to reach its first billion – and has taken only 12 years to add our latest billion.” From The Guardian.

The human population was under 4 billion when I was in high school in 1971. The human population has increased by 75% in 40 years. The US population was at 207 million. It is now at 312 million, so the US population has increased by 50% in 40 years.

Add to that the matter of how much humans consume – especially Americans – and one must, once again, ask, not “Do we need population control,” but “How do we control, which is to say reduce, the human population, before nature does it for us?” Especially when some people believe, as Mother Teresa reportedly said, that “Saying there are too many babies is like saying there are too many flowers.”

Porn Is Not a Dirty Word (study)

As usual, Dan Savage brings to light a good article – written by a woman – about a good study – done by a woman – that shows porn doesn’t create negative attitudes towards women:

Bettina Arndt writing in Sydney Morning Herald:

The suggestion that porn changes men’s attitudes to sex is really questionable. While there’s a body of psychology research suggesting exposure to porn has that effect, Professor Catherine Lumby and colleagues in The Porn Report, published in 2008, found this laboratory-based research to be contradictory and unlikely to reflect real-life situations. ”The entire tradition of social science research into pornography has started with the assumption that porn is a major cause of negative attitudes towards women and has set out to prove this,” conclude these Australian academics. These researchers found mainstream porn to be largely free of violence and other degrading material. Instead, the huge growth area online is the DIY amateur porn industry, where ordinary men and women are baring all, grunting and groaning in front of web cameras—a far cry from the dark and dangerous world so many warn about.

Dan goes on:

Some people—men and women—seek out violent and degrading porn because violence and degradation turns them on. They don’t get turned on to violence and degradation by porn. (How much porn do you view that doesn’t cater to your established preferences?) Hardcore kinky porn meets a demand, it doesn’t create it. And the question we need to ask when we discuss it isn’t, “Should this type of porn be allowed to exist?”, but rather, “Under what conditions is this type of porn being created?”

via Porn In Reality | Slog.

And yes, it is possible to be a feminist and be pro-porn, and pro-sexual freedom for all. Just ask Susie Bright.

Wow – THIS is a first: California Transgender Bills Signed Into Law By Governor Jerry Brown

It is high time for transgender rights to be mainstream within the GLBT rights movement. Once again, California leads the way. A little late on the posting but important nonetheless.

Read: HuffPost: California Transgender Bills Signed Into Law By Governor Jerry Brown.

Are we still evolving? Based on the current political situation in our country, no.

Whether humans are still evolving biologically depends—and doesn’t—on which humans you ask. Thought provoking. 

Read the article from Nova here.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 475 other followers