Wednesday, September 10, 2003

The Dual Mind and Progress Timothy Wilken, MD writes: Both animal and human offspring begin their lives in nearly total ignorance. The differences that exist between them are small, but what advantage in knowing that does exist belongs clearly to the animal. While the animal seems to begin life with a greater store of inherited knowing, it possesses little ability to learn from its parents. The animal is condemned to rediscover over and over, every generation must discover anew the knowings of its parents. The wise old owl may know a great deal, but he has no way to pass what he knows to his offspring and they have no way to receive it. Animals have only the space-mind. They are confined to living in the world of “is”. Only humans have access to the dual-world. We can and do pass our knowing from one generation to the next. Progress can be defined as: The progression from the world of “is” to the world of “ought to be” —  the progression from the real world to the ideal world. We humans need our space-mind to survive in space. To be safe in the world of “is”, but we need our time-mind if we want to create a better world  —  a world that “ought to be”. Albert Schweitzer, the great humanitarian who worked with the poor and ill in Africa, said he wanted to see a world where there was no disease. Well, I think most of us would probably agree that represents  a good “ought to be”.  Now, its important to remember that not all “ought to be”s are good. “Ought to be”s are just opinions. Adolf Hitler wanted a world where there were no Jews. Not such a good “ought to be”. An “ought to be” is just an opinion. At its very best, it becomes an ideal. At its very worst it can become nightmare of crime and tragedy. Animals kill for food or to eliminate competing genetic lines, but only humans murder each other because their time-mind has decided that someone “ought not to be”.  (02/10/02) What is Shumei Natural Agriculture? Lisa M. Hamilton writes: In retrospect they are called pioneers, but in the actual moments that the world’s innovators seize history in their hands, the titles are less glamorous: loon, fool, heretic. Yet both sets of names grow from the same idea, that the person in question has proposed a reality different from what we find familiar and comfortable. When J.I. Rodale introduced non-chemical agriculture into North America’s burgeoning agribusiness system, there simply was no room for it. The prevailing definition of what was true—that agricultural wealth requires chemical additives—by default made organic methods false. What I would have given for this insight on my first day in Japan. I was visiting farms that practice Natural Agriculture (N.A.), a nascent movement promoted by the Shumei faith, mainly in Asia. I was sent there to unravel the mystery of how it works, meant to return home with practicable techniques and hard facts and numbers. But after hours of dead-end questions and answers as solid as smoke, I sat down and wrote this: “Maybe it is because I am a foreigner and they don’t want to get that personal. Maybe it’s because I’m not asking the right questions, either because I don’t understand the culture or because I don’t understand N.A. But here is what I really think: I think N.A. doesn’t work that well.” In a way, I was correct. When evaluated using conventional Western definitions of what farming is and does, Natural Agriculture doesn’t score very high. But it doesn’t try to. That’s because it’s not simply a different method of organic cultivation, like dry-farming or Grow Bio-intensive. In fact, its proponents will plead with you to understand that it’s not a method at all; it’s a philosophy In abstract it sounds like organics in this country: no chemicals; reliance on the strength of plant and soil; working with nature, not against it. Yet the guiding principle behind these tangible directives is more slippery. The ultimate goal is to create a heaven on earth, and so Natural Agriculture aims to create systems as close as possible to what nature would make on its own. (09/10/03) Saving Energy is Possible Environmental News Network -- New investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation could begin lowering natural gas prices immediately and help retain manufacturing jobs, a study prepared by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) released today shows.  ... "This study shows that we can quickly reduce wholesale natural gas prices 10-20 percent and save consumers over $75 billion in the next five years, " stated David Wooley, Vice President of the Energy Foundation. "The fastest, surest way to give gas and electricity consumers relief from spiking energy prices is to enact state and federal policies to expand renewable power generation and to help consumers install more efficient electric and gas appliances, and heating and cooling systems." Specific policy solutions outlined in the study include: update state and federal appliance efficiency standards; require electric utilities to use more renewable power generation; expand rebates and grants to consumers to improve equipment efficiency and install clean on-site power generation; expand federal research and development support for emerging efficiency and renewable generation technologies; and establish tax credits for efficiency and renewable energy investments. "The study, which is based on a scientific analysis of natural gas markets, outlines the specific benefits that energy efficiency and renewables would provide to our economy by reducing the high energy costs borne by consumers and industry," explained Dr. Neal Elliott, Industry Program Director at ACEEE and co-author of the study. "Contrary to what many are saying, there is something we can do about natural gas prices right now. Increased efficiency and renewable energy can reduce natural gas prices quickly and affordably." According to the study, lower natural gas prices and consumption would save consumers $15 billion/year nationally from 2004 to 2008 for cumulative savings of over $75 billion over the next five years. This translates into an average residential household savings of $96 per year on natural gas bills. Additional savings would occur from lower electricity bills. (09/10/03) Don't Flush Old Meds Environmental News Network -- What's the best way to throw away leftover, expired medicines? Once the answer was "flush 'em" to ensure that children and animals couldn't stumble on the drugs and be poisoned. Now scientists are increasingly warning not to flush drugs. Antibiotics, hormones, and other medicines are being found in waterways, raising worrisome questions about potential health and environmental effects. ... Individual patients aside, one study estimated the nation's nursing homes discard anywhere from US$73 million to $378 million worth of drugs a year. Some are incinerated, but many are flushed. And Australia has collected more than 760 tons of medicines since starting a program in 1998 that encourages consumers there to return unwanted drugs to pharmacies so they can be incinerated. Canada has a similar program. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is studying whether to develop formal recommendations for what to do with old drugs. "The age-old wisdom of flushing medication down the toilet ... is probably the least desirable of all the alternatives," Christian Daughton of the EPA's Las Vegas laboratory wrote in an overview of the issue, published in a scientific journal last spring. ... At issue are the "pharmaceutical and personal care pollutants" that defy traditional wastewater treatment. Long a concern abroad, they made headlines in the United States when the U.S. Geological Survey found traces of dozens — painkillers, estrogen, antidepressants, blood-pressure medicines — in water samples from 30 states. Long-term effects aren't known, but scientists worry that exposure to even tiny amounts might cause some harm, at least ecologically. Studies have linked hormone exposure to reproductive side effects in fish, for example, and environmental exposure to antibiotics may encourage development of drug-resistant germs. (09/10/03) World Conservation Union Meets BBC Nature -- The protection of the world's most precious environments and the future of more than 11,000 species facing extinction will be discussed by conservationists at the World Park's Congress in Durban which opened on Monday. Since the last conference a decade ago, protected areas have doubled in size and now cover about 12% of the Earth's surface. But just how much of the area classed as protected by the World Conservation Union is really secure will be one of the questions delegates will be asking. Nelson Mandela and Queen Noor of Jordan will open the 10-day event. How conservation can pay for itself in poor countries and be used to boost economies through tourism will also be on the agenda. It's the first time the 10-yearly meeting has been held in Africa and the success of trans-frontier parks, which cross international boundaries, and are increasing in number across southern Africa, will be assessed. A list of all the protected areas in the world will be published and an accord will be signed at the end of the conference committing to a global conservation plan for the next 10 years. (09/10/03) 7:26:40 AM

© TrustMark 2003 Timothy Wilken. Last update: 10/1/2003; 9:49:32 AM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.