Recently I was involved in a discussion between “environmentally aware” adults and pre-teen age boys. The topic had turned to the great outdoor sport of catch-and-release fishing as a fun sport. One of the young men mentioned that he had a strong love of animals, even fish that were returned to the water safely after being caught for sport. “Sounds like fun” was the consensus response from the other kids and the adults. It was expressed as the same kind of fun as playing “fetch” with a pet dog. My first reaction was, “I wonder how much the fish enjoys this fun sport?” Not much is my guess.
Back in the “bad old days” when I was a young man the survival rate for fish released because they were not wanted, were illegal to keep because of size, or just “got loose” was pretty low (reports by the fish and game organizations reported numbers of about 40% mortality rate). A quick browser search found a wide range of estimates, from 0% to as high as 25% mortality – indicating that there is a shortage of actual data. I assume that it all depends upon the fish, the tackle, the environment, the fisherman and more. I read a lot of suggestions of what sounds like “old wives tales” concerning ways to decrease mortality, but I didn’t read anything about impacts other than death. If the fish doesn’t actually die from the encounter it is considered “safe and fun.” Injuries such as loss of vision or burst swim bladders don’t seem to count.
I wonder about the appropriateness of teaching young people that using, abusing and killing wild animals is “fun” in any sense of the word. Perhaps killing them for food could be a necessity. I can almost go along with catching and eating fish, that seems to be in general alignment with the way nature works. But purposefully hurting or killing animals for “fun” is rather odd – I wonder how deeply this impacts a person’s ability to honor and appreciate nature and other people. To me, it has a strong flavor of claiming our “right” to do whatever we want to whoever or whatever we want.
I totally agree with the benefits of spending time in nature, walking along streams, hanging out in lakes, etc. However, I don’t agree that it is necessary to be a hunter or a “bully” of wildlife to do so. There are many things to do in nature that create the experience without the damage. Nature photography springs to mind, as well as many “science based” things such as learning the geology, biology, etc. of an area. It can just be the fun of experiencing the environment – I spent many hours enjoying exploring, hiking, walking in and along creeks, camping, etc. without ever finding a need to injure or kill anything to enjoy the experience. I didn’t take photographs, didn’t learn much about any science, or do much of anything that could be considered difficult or beneficial. I just enjoyed the experience of being there.
As far as I know from my experiences, there is absolutely no reason that killing and hurting are somehow necessary to achieve the goals of enjoying nature. In fact, I find it vastly more enjoyable to just observe, doing everything that I can to “leave no trace” of my ever having been there. I enjoy the challenge of being as “invisible” to nature as possible, honoring the spirit of the place by my not having any impact, including “playing” with the fish.
I met Lee Polanco more than a dozen years ago when he “stopped” by my house one Sunday evening while I was watching “60 Minutes” with my wife. I had recently returned from a trip to visit a friend in a very remote “aborigine” town in northeastern Australia. During that brief trip I made friends with many people who actively practice “the old ways” – and fell into a deep friendship (love?) with many aboriginal people. I found that they interacted in ways that were missing from my experience in California. They were interacting and experiencing each other in ways that appeared to be much closer and meaningful than I was used to. We quickly developed friendships and “sharing” that felt open and somehow more real. However, when I went back to Cairns on the way home I noticed that their culture disappeared from sight, even though I knew it was all around me – but invisible from the outside.
When I got home I realized that a similar situation must exist right here in Northern California. It became obvious that my “white” community exists in the same time and place as an Indian community which was also invisible from the outside. Enter Mr. Polanco. On that Sunday night when I answered the door to a very stern looking young man my world changed in many ways. The young man stood there for a few seconds and then said something like, “my chief wants to talk to you.” I was totally surprised by this, but out of great curiosity I followed him to the pickup where I was introduced to Lee. We exchanged pleasantries until Lee asked that I take him for a walk around my five acre property in a Eucalyptus grove. Along the way we chatted a bit, but mostly Lee was silent – contemplating something. Once we finished the tour he said he would send “the boys” down to get the wood next weekend. “The Boys”??? Who in the heck were these boys and what kind of wood were they looking for? Lee said it (without defining “it”) was “good” and gave me general specifications for the wood – straight, about five feet long, between 2.5 to 4 inches in diameter. He wanted a pickup load of it by next weekend.
Totally intrigued by this odd encounter, and his proclamation that my wood was “good enough,” I diligently prepared a pickup load of wood meeting his specifications. Sure enough, bright and early on the next Saturday a truck load of “the boys” showed up for the wood – and my life took a new, and beautiful, path. On that morning I met Irvine, Freddy, Smiley and Frankenstein plus a couple of young men. A week later Lee showed up unexpectedly with a middle-aged couple dressed in very formal, bright blue and white clothes! Apparently they were the “sponsors” for something having to do with the wood. (I later learned that is was for a Native American Church peyote ceremony). They were there to ensure that the wood, the property and myself were satisfactory for their ceremony. It was obvious that the right “spirit” was required – apparently “we” passed.
Just like that I had a new friend in Lee. Over the next dozen or so years we spent time together building a sweat lodge in my backyard, traveled around through the neighboring hills telling stories and getting to know each other, attending various types of ceremonies together and finding a deep, unexpected, connection. He sang songs, told me many stories of his life; I shared experiences from my life many of which I assumed were just “weird.” I assumed I made things up, or possibly was having dreams or hallucinations. He felt they were important at a much deeper level than I had understood. He told me many stories of his life, from his childhood in Texas, his time doing service in the Marine Corps, his 34 years as a Sun dancer, to his years driving a Greyhound bus, his years being a spiritual leader at the prison in Vacaville, and much more.
The thing about Lee is that he donated his entire mind, body and soul to help others. No matter how hard it was, or how difficult it was for him, he was there as a spiritual force. He was forever dancing, singing, making “instruments” (gourd rattles, drums, leather goods, etc.), leading ceremonies, and just being there when needed. I was never certain why he seemed so happy to see me, but he always made me feel like I was really “special” to him. I suspect he did that to everyone he knew. Everyone was a special person to him.
I am forever indebted to him for introducing me to a new group of “Indian” friends. Friends that have helped me change many of my views of life, changing my understanding and appreciation of nature and true praying, and just added fun and pleasure to my life. He will be greatly missed by all of his “special” friends, meaning everyone that had the honor of knowing him.
I continue to be perplexed about how difficult it is for people to see the magnitude of the problems that our continued release of CO2 (carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere are having, and will continue to have, on the global environment. I don’t blame the difficulty of comprehending the magnitude of the problem on “the public,” but I certainly blame it on “the media.” The media primarily focus on the topic of greenhouse gases creating “global warming” resulting in slightly (one or two degrees) warmer weather, brief periods of extreme weather and a slow increase in sea levels. Most people now believe that we are experiencing a period of increased variability in global weather, and they agree that is probably results in more extreme weather. But they don’t seem to comprehend the severity of the situation and don’t want to believe that people are contributing to the changes.
Many people think we are experiencing a natural, temporary, increase in temperature – something that happens all the time. They don’t believe that we (mankind) can cause problems sufficient to drive such as big system. They take the position that while there probably is global warming, and that warming is probably making the weather worse and perhaps causing a small rise of sea levels, they believe that none of this has anything to do with us. It is a “natural” occurrence and therefore there is nothing we can do about it.
The thing is, there are additional potentially catastrophic outcomes from releasing huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere than bigger storms, more uncomfortable temperatures and slightly higher sea levels. While the media sometimes hint at these issues, they don’t get the full throated messaging that they deserve. I find it astounding that given the potential severity of the problems created by the release of these gases we continue with the status quo. Dramatically limiting the release of greenhouse gases (most notably CO2 and CH4 (methane)) can be accomplished inexpensively with very little disruption to our lifestyle, and will result in many other positive health and economic outcomes. Doing so will result in an enhanced, healthier and less expensive lifestyle. Even if it turns out that all of the dire predictions turn out to be false, it is still worth our while to stop polluting the atmosphere with by releasing vast quantities of these chemicals. I don’t understand why we (Society and Government) are so timid about making the necessary changes.
For now I am going to leave discussion of exactly how these gases can be economically reduced to a later time. Right now I just want to point out that changing our carbon footprint has many positive outcomes, including improving our health, while saving money and resources. Vastly reducing our carbon footprint has enough positive results to make it worthwhile even if doing so has no impact on global warming, wild weather or a rise in sea levels.
It is important that the public and our leaders better understand the full range of potentially negative impacts of continuing the current practices of releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. It isn’t just about warming the air, melting ice, changing weather or creating slightly deeper oceans. I am writing this article in the hope of illustrating a few of the other problems. However, my choice of topics is by no means exhaustive, there are MANY other problems associated with our current practices, including potential health impacts from air pollution.
Ocean Acidification:
One of the potentially devastating outcomes of increased CO2 levels has to do with impacts on the ocean food-chain caused by the acidification of the oceans. When CO2 is absorbed by seawater, a series of chemical reactions occur resulting in the seawater becoming more acidic. Approximately 30% of the CO2 released to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans. Increased acidity causes carbonate (CO3) ions to be relatively less abundant. Carbonate ions are an important building block of structures such as sea shells and coral skeletons. Decreases in carbonate ions can make building and maintaining shells and other calcium carbonate structures difficult for calcifying organisms such as oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton.
The problem with difficulties for species such as clams and oysters is just the tip of the iceberg. Many of the calcareous plankton form the bottom of the ocean food-chain web that other species of ocean creatures depend upon, and which we also depend upon. For example, calcareous plankton are extremely sensitive to ocean acid levels and the availability of carbonate ions to form their shells. There appears to be a sharp range of pH below which these creatures can no longer effectively reproduce and live. Studies find that is happening in many locations, and appears to be worsening as the pH of the oceans continues to fall due to the absorption of carbon dioxide by the water. Losing a large part of the bottom of the food web does not bode well for the ocean ecology.
Many larval fish are also quite sensitive to acid levels, failing to mature when the pH is too low (the water is too acidic). Low pH levels not only interfere with shell growth not only interferes with maintaining shell mass, it can dissolve existing shells on living organisms. An example of the kind of problems expected, in a recent study when pteropod shells were placed in sea water with pH and carbonate levels projected for the year 2100, the shells dissolved after 45 days. Researchers have already discovered severe levels of pteropod shell dissolution in the Southern Ocean, which encircles Antarctica. Pteropods are an important part of many food webs and eaten by organisms ranging in size from tiny krill to whales. A NOAA-funded study has documented that ocean acidification along the U.S. Pacific Northwest coast is impacting the shells and sensory organs of some young Dungeness crab, a prized crustacean that supports the most valuable fishery on the West Coast.
However, the problem of reducing the bottom of the food chain is not the end of the story. In addition to the obvious potential impacts on the diversity and abundance of marine plants and animals, there are also many known, and unknown, physical changes brought about by acidification of oceans. One change that is important to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is caused by the reduced calcification affecting the ocean’s biologically driven sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere to the ocean interior and seafloor sediment. A surprising impact of decreased pH in the oceans is that it changes the acoustic properties of seawater, allowing sound to propagate further, and increasing ocean noise. This impacts all animals that use sound for echolocation or communication.
Loss of Ice Shelves:
The recent rapid melting and breakup of giant ice shelves in the Antarctic have been well publicized, but without clear descriptions of the potential impacts of these vast areas of floating ice. The concern of rise in ocean levels resulting from the melting of floating ice has been correctly debunked because melting of floating ice does not change water levels. When the ice melts, the water level remains the same. However, entrance of grounded (ice supported by the ground) ice into the oceans can have dramatic impacts on sea levels. The issue isn’t sea level rise from melting floating ice making up vast ice shelves; it is that the ice shelves are blocking huge grounded glaciers from sliding into the sea. These glaciers are large enough to cause dramatic sea level rises. For example, the Thwaites Glacier alone holds enough ice to raise global sea levels two feet. It’s also a bottleneck protecting the larger West Antarctic ice sheet (grounded ice), which would raise sea level 10 feet if it were slide into the ocean. The sliding could be caused by the melting and/or breakup of a single ice shelf; which is already happening with the disintegration of the Thwaites ice shelf expected within the decade. We don’t know how rapidly the West Antarctic ice sheet could move once freed – but we know there is the potential for catastrophic flooding should it occur. Similar changes are happening throughout the Antarctic and arctic regions. Ice is melting rapidly, and unpredictably – creating unpredictable risks from sea level induced flooding around the world. (Since I wrote this I found out that the Thwaites Ice Sheet appears to be moving over “rippled” ground that might slow the slide of the glacier into the sea – but that is just one threat among others so while I might be over exaggerating the current threat from that particular glacier, the concept is still of concern.)
Current projections of sea level rise above the 2020 average range from about 2 feet to 10 feet by the end of the century (which is about my current lifetime). These projections are based upon many assumptions concerning future rates of rise of global temperature. Perhaps more importantly, the projections assume that glaciers melt in place rather than by movement (sliding) of blocks of ice into the sea. As long as most of the glaciers stay where they are and just melt, then those rather alarming projections are likely to be accurate. However, there is a great deal of uncertainty in projections of future sea levels. The conservative projection of approximately 2 feet within 75 years is based upon a linear projection of historical data. The estimate of up to 10 feet of rise by the turn of the century assumes an increasing rate of global warming. However, neither of these takes into consideration the potential for the physical movement of large amounts of ice that could far overshadow the rate of melting. I believe the amount of rise by the end of the century will be closer to 15 feet (or more) in a period of time about the same as from when the Beatles were popular and now, and will continue at the elevated rate for many years beyond that. But who knows? Perhaps we will be lucky.
Surprisingly, the threat of huge increases in sea levels may not be the worst outcome of the melting of the ice sheets.
Ice sheets (floating sea ice) are decreasing in size and breaking up because they are melting from the bottom. The warming of the oceans is resulting in warmer sea water that is rapidly melting the floating ice, preventing new ice from forming each winter. This in turn results in the release of large quantities of fresh water, making the adjacent ocean much less salty, and therefore less dense.
Under “normal” conditions, Southern Polar Region experience the formation of large ice shelves when the oceans freeze in winter, forming large quantities of frozen fresh water ice. Converting ocean water to salt free ice “squeezes” salt out of the newly formed ice, increase the salt concentration and density of the adjacent ocean water. The cold, heavier salty water then falls toward the ocean floor forming the extra-salty Antarctic Bottom Water (AABW) that moves slowly toward the subtropics as part of the driving force for what is known as thermohaline circulation. The thermohaline circulation weaves around and through the oceans of the world, upwelling in some regions and descending in others – injecting much needed nutrients into ocean waters, and transporting large quantities of heat from one region to another.
This creates a massive current of sea water moving energy and nutrients in a giant watery conveyor belt. These currents moderate global temperatures and mix nutrients resulting in the marvelous diversity and productivity of the oceans. If those conveyor belts stop functioning they will have immediate and dramatic impacts on all aspects of the world. There is already a dramatic slowdown of the deep ocean currents caused by the melting of ice shelves. We can only that there is not a “tipping point” after which the currents cease to flow.
The global conveyor belt, shown in part here, circulates cool subsurface water and warm surface water throughout the world. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is part of this complex system of global ocean currents. This illustration is captured from a short video produced by NOAA Science on a Sphere.
The Thermohaline Circulation influences the climate all over the world. The impacts of the decline and potential shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could include losses in agricultural output, ecosystem changes, and the triggering of other climate tipping points. Other likely impacts of AMOC decline include reduced precipitation in mid-latitudes, changing patterns of strong precipitation in the tropics and Europe, and strengthening storms that follow the North Atlantic track. Finally, a decline would also be accompanied by strong sea level rise along the eastern North American coast.
Methane Hydrates:
And then there are the methane hydrates waiting patiently on the ocean floors around the world. Methane hydrates (more specifically clathrate hydrate) is a solid material in which a large amount of methane is trapped within an ice-like crystal structure of methane and water. It mainly forms in water and sediment depths below 300 – 500m. While it is unknown how much of this material is susceptible to disassociation due to increased global temperatures, it is potentially a very large quantity. The current research indicates that it is unlikely for a massive turn-over event that suddenly releases vast quantities of methane to occur. It is more likely to be a gradual release as the temperature increases at the depth of the upper levels of hydrates as the ocean temperature increased due to global warming. Apparently very little of this methane will make it to the atmosphere. Instead it will be converted to CO2 that then increases the acidity of the ocean and eventually gets released into the atmosphere while decreasing the ability of the ocean to act as a carbon dioxide “sink” – adding to the global warming problem.
Conclusion:
These are just a few issues that are caused by increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Many potentially devastating outcomes are either independent of global warming, or amount to additional feed-back loops that increase the greenhouse effect even though they are not “primarily” caused by the release of burning fossil fuels. They are potent sources of greenhouse gas that are sequestered by nature, but will be released as global temperatures increase. I just mentioned a couple of these naturally occurring carbon sinks that we be (and are) impacted by warming that is man-made. The release of vast quantities of methane from tundra as it thaws due to global warming is another well known “natural” source that is released from sequestration as temperatures increase.
Whether or not the increased levels of methane and carbon dioxide are responsible for the observed increase in global temperatures is not important for determining whether or not it is necessary to reduce (or eliminate) human created sources of carbon dioxide. There are so many other negative impacts from the burning of fossil fuels and the release of carbon dioxide that the question of whether it is a significant driver of global warming is a moot point. The global ecosystem can’t survive as we know it with the continued increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels regardless of it causing global warming. We are facing multifaceted existential threats, any of which can (and probably will) destroy civilization as we know it and lead to the extinction of thousands of species (perhaps including ours). The magnitudes of the threats are such that in order to survive, we MUST take immediate and dramatic action.
An interesting point about taking the necessary actions is that they are inexpensive, easily implemented and result in enhanced health and quality of life for everyone. They aren’t draconian changes tending to destroy our life styles or cause health problems. They are changes that make life better, cleaner and more affordable. In the process, they create millions of good quality, high paying jobs. As far as I can determine, there are few (or no) downsides to taking action right now. We know what has to be done, we have the technologies to do it, and it will improve our lives in many important ways – not the least is to clean up the air and water.
The real question is what will it take to convince people to take the necessary actions? That might be a great topic for a follow on blog – “why don’t we take action to save the environment?”
Hello to whoever might be reading this. It has been a long time since I have updated my blog. Everything is fine with me – but it just seems that there are not enough hours in a day to do all of the thing that keep coming along and sitting down to write too. I keep having many thoughts that I would like to express in my blog, even writing many of the ideas down so I don’t forget. However, by the time I get around to them either they lost their compelling “energy,” I lost the list yet again or my notes are so sparse that I can’t recall the topic. I keep promising myself that I’ll make time on a regular basis to write. Of course, every single day that comes along is filled to the brim with “things” that have a higher priority. An example is my taking the time to make this sketch:
It is a sketch of my little barn viewed from my back yard. My family had a family Christmas gathering at my place a week before Christmas, with one of the requirements being that everyone was tasked to make a gift to share. I decided that a sketch of our barn would be enjoyed since my kids and grandkids grew up with this as a backdrop to much of their lives. During 4-H years we kept animals in it, now it contains my wood shop and a pottery studio. It was always a place to play and do things. The drawing was a hit! I am pleased that they liked it. The grandson that selected it (“stole” it from his father – my son) promised to make prints for others. This is an example of the sort of important things that keep getting in the way.
Another major time sink has been my year long attempt to purchase a new home in my home town of Sonoma (California). My current home near Sacramento is very nice, beautiful and comfortable (and paid for!!) – but with a five acre back yard it is more than I will be able to maintain in the future. I am looking for an alternate place to stay that is closer to town. However, I am finding this to be a daunting task because my needs/desires are somehow very squishy – I make a list of what I need and don’t need, want and don’t want – thinking it will help find the “right” place. But once there, walking through a potential new home, I find new things I want or don’t want, or find that the priorities are different from what I thought they were, or it just “doesn’t feel right.” Of course there is also the matter of money (affordability), but I don’t seem to be able to settle down enough on my priorities to even worry about that.
I get bogged down in crazy sorts of concerns. It turns out I like “funky” (but not too funky, and not too time consuming to create and maintain), I also like simple and plain (but not too simple and not too plain), I like a nice yard (but easy to maintain and not too small), I like upscale fancy stuff (but too much shine and glitz is too sterile for my taste). Some need a LOT of help because of years of neglected maintenance – and I get excited about doing all of that as a fun project, until I remember how much work and expense that will be. I am being Goldilocks. Each new opportunity ends up taking another day to visit, view, discuss and eventually turn down. It is frustrating, so much so that I often just give up and resign myself to staying where I am – until another potential opportunity pops up and I am back into search.
I have been so busy that I haven’t even had time (or the inclination) to keep up with politics for the first time in fifty years or so. I hear snippets of news, such as Trump being rejected in some States because of his involvement in the insurrection – but don’t follow up because I am certain that will all be overturned once it hits the Republican dominated Supreme Court. I hear great things like California’s plan to install up to 200 new hydrogen fueling stations by 2025. Good news, maybe. It all depends upon where the hydrogen is coming from. There are many other topics that get my interest – but I still don’t seem to settle down to writing about them.
My proposed new year’s resolution is to become more consistent in my writing – writing everyday or perhaps every other day. I also resolve to make more time in my life to talk to great friends and interesting strangers – sort of a continuation of my experiences while traveling across the country. Of course I don’t have much confidence in those resolutions making any difference – I already make the promise to myself to write every morning before I crawl out of bed. I mentally set aside time to be with friends and meet new people — and then the world happens.
I had an interesting, and fun, encounter with a couple of strangers last evening that left me feeling happy and a little more optimistic than I have been for a long time. My new girlfriend (Cathy) and I decided to spend a few days at my cabin on Lake Almanor in the Northern California mountains. Lake Almanor is located very near the foot of Mount Lassen, in the location of the 2021 Dixie Fire that devastated almost a million acres of the Sierra Nevada forest. A few years ago my late wife and myself I moved furniture from her family cabin that had been condemned by the Forest Service. That cabin, near South Lake Tahoe, had been built by her father and grand-father in the early 1920’s and been her family’s “mountain getaway” until a change to the freeway drainage washed a nearby cliff away, endangering the cabin. We needed someplace to put all of the old things imbued with family sentimental value – so we purchased another cabin in a country club located on a peninsula in the middle of Lake Almanor.
Cathy and I decided to go to the country club “pub” for a happy hour wine (or two). It was a bustling place, luckily there were two empty bar stools at the end of the bar for us. The lady bartender seemed happy to see me after a year absence. She was full of stories, including funny pantomimes to illustrate some of them. A second lady bartender soon started a conversation with Cathy about a lot of things, eventually talking about her art and many other things. Cathy is an accomplished artist (her website is Catherinelee.com), meaning that when the discussion turned to art she was all in. By this time the couple sitting next to us began to join in to what had become a fun and rather free-wheeling discussion group.
I ended up in an engaging conversation with this couple on a wide range of interesting topics, including life with their new “blended” family where they all of a sudden have five young children, three dogs and a gold fish to manage. I talked about my problems with moving cabins, we talked about all sorts of personal and not so perfect topics. While I only know my side of the conversation, I believe all of us had a really nice time chatting and getting to know each other. At some point in the conversation one of us (perhaps me since I am often rather “politically incorrect”) pointed out that we were enjoying each other in a very free and open way, even though it was pretty obvious that we are widely separated in our political views. I think they are pretty conservative, and I know I am pretty liberal. We all stopped at that point and took stock of my comment, agreed that I was almost certainly correct, and decided that we didn’t even want to explore just how different our views might be. We all just smiled, noted that while that might be true it didn’t matter in the least, decided to ignore all of that – and dove right back into our conversation.
This morning I remembered that conversation with renewed optimism that perhaps the contentious red-blue, right-left, us-them mindset might be abating. Perhaps all of us are getting fed up with the anger, perhaps all of us are releasing that we are all hoping for improving things and just perhaps there are many parts to the answers that can be formed by joining our thoughts and ideas. Maybe it is more fun liking each other and working together to identify the problems, searching for solutions together.
In any case, this encounter with “conservatives” (at least I assume they are, we never really discussed that enough for me to know for sure) was fun, interesting, fruitful and just plain felt friendly and good. I recalled that I had many similar encounters with people with many different points of view on my trip across America. There is MUCH more that we have in common as people than we have differences, and in fact, most of those differences aren’t actually even different – we just think they are until we explore with an open mind and heart.
Last evening’s happy hour chat(s) was (were) really great. On the one hand they were fun, but more importantly they reminded me how wonderful it can feel to just relax and enjoy each other (including our differences).
Currently the two best candidates for chemical energy storage are the two lightest metals – sort of. Lithium, a light highly reactive metal, it is the main component of the lithium batteries used to power many portable electronic devices and electric cars. Hydrogen is also a metal that at normal conditions is nonmetallic, but becomes a metal at high pressures (very high pressures). Both of these elements can be used to create efficient, light weight, high energy density electrical storage systems. However, from the safety and environmental (and cost) point of view they are very different.
I recently got into a discussion with a young engineer concerning the suitability of these two energy storage options and found that while this engineer is quite bright and interested in all things “environmental,” he had a lot of incorrect perceptions and information on the subjects. While I was attempting to “set him straight” on a few of the important topics it dawned on me that perhaps his lack of information and understanding is shared by some of the readers of my blog offerings. Therefore, I am going to take a few minutes to try to fill in some of the major holes.
Perhaps the first myth that needs to be dispelled is the popular idea that hydrogen is “extremely dangerous” as evidenced by the Hindenburg fire. Granted, the burning of the Hindenburg was a great tragedy and very spectacular, but it was not “just” a hydrogen fire as is widely reported. The fire resulted from a combination of factors, not the least of which was the use of highly flammable coatings on the fabric of the dirigible. There is a lot of debate concerning the details of the Hindenburg disaster, so many that a “true” story may never be told. However, it seems clear that the magnitude of the fire and speed of spread was a combination of the presence of very large quantities (over 7 million cubic feet) of highly flammable hydrogen gas and the highly flammable covering.
When hydrogen burns the flame is almost invisible. The photographs of the fire clearly show very large colored flames. This means that something besides hydrogen was burning, and that “something” contributed greatly to the intensity and spread of the fire. The bulk of the hydrogen wasn’t burning, and probably never did, because it consisted of 100% hydrogen gas which requires mixing with oxygen in order to burn. It is my guess that most of the released hydrogen escaped into the atmosphere and mixed with air and diluted below the flammable range before it ignited. Some of the hydrogen burned, but probably not all of it did. The burning hydrogen may well have ignited the structural elements of the craft but it wasn’t just a “hydrogen fire” – it was a fire that resulted from a complex interaction of many features of the design of the entire system. The Hindenburg was designed and built as a helium filled set of balloons. Switching to using hydrogen instead of inflammable helium resulted in an extremely dangerous situation. Hydrogen can be used safely, but only if done so properly – just as with any other energetic material.
One feature of hydrogen fires is that they don’t radiate much infrared thermal energy, in fact they emit so little visible light and “heat” that workers in hydrogen facilities sometimes walk holding brooms in from of them so they can detect a large hydrogen fire before walking into the invisible flame. Hydrogen fires don’t emit infrared energy that can cause flammable materials to catch on fire from radiation. The Hindenburg fire probably spread as fast as it did because the glowing particles from the burning structure emitted large amounts of infrared (“heat”) energy that ignited unburned fabric well in advance of the flame front. My guess is that it spread so rapidly that the ignition was spread by thermal radiation reaching far in advance of the flame front. It was not just an advancing flame front the surface of the burning structure.
While hydrogen gas can undoubtedly be quite dangerous, that does not mean that it is unacceptably dangerous, or as dangerous as other sources of high density energy. For example, the Space Shuttle burned the equivalent of over 34 billion cubic feet of hydrogen (5,000 times the volume of the Hindenburg) during a launch. The risk isn’t because of the use of hydrogen, it is HOW it is used. The Hindenburg had many serious design flaws with respect to the use of large quantities of hydrogen that almost guaranteed a disaster such as the Hindenburg fire. Gasoline is considered “acceptable” only because systems have been designed to effectively control the risks. Now and then a large, highly destructive gasoline fire occurs, but this is amazingly rare. It is my engineering judgement (as a System Safety Engineer) that hydrogen gas can be made much safer than gasoline, while they both clearly have significant risks. My point isn’t that there are no risks, it is that the risks are comparable to, and often much less, than risks that we accept as a matter of course.
Hydrogen gas comes from many sources, some of which could be called “green” sources, and others not so green. Today, most hydrogen is made from “black” sources of hydrocarbons such as oil, coal or natural gas. There are also largely untapped sources of “white” hydrogen in underground naturally occurring, pockets of geological hydrogen. The most promising source of “green” hydrogen comes from the decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen using power from non-polluting sources such as solar, wind, wave, hydroelectric or geothermal electrical generation systems. This approach uses hydrogen as a type of chemical battery where the energy can be stored in pressurized containers indefinitely until it is needed, at which point it is re-combined with oxygen to release energy in the form of heat or electricity.
High capacity storage batteries (such as lithium batteries) are certainly not “safe” or “environmentally friendly.” They are highly dangerous both from the potential for them to explode, and from the point of view of containing very large quantities of stored electricity. A major hazard with using in high voltage, high capacity batteries in vehicles is related to what happens following an accident that damages the batteries and/or electrical system. The stored energy doesn’t just “dissipate” it remains until it either causes an explosion or fire, or presents a high power electrical hazard to first responders and the accident victims. Many interesting, and horrifying, scenarios are possible when these systems become damaged in unpredictable ways.
Perhaps the largest problems with the use of lithium batteries are related to the highly negative impact on the environment associated with mining, refining and disposing of the lithium and various other materials (including graphite, cobalt, manganese and nickel) used in the batteries. With the possible exception of cobalt, there are sufficient amounts of these materials to supply the short term future market, but mining and refining these materials come with substantial negative environmental impacts in terms of size of mining sites, potential for pollution and the use of large quantities of water. Lithium production is particularly problematic because it is found in low concentration surface deposits in arid regions necessitating the destruction of vast areas of environmentally sensitive desert. In addition, large amounts of water are required in the extraction/refining process that can damage already limited sources of surface and ground water.
The most likely use of energy storage in the near future will be to meet the demand for powering electric vehicles. Currently, the two most “market ready” approaches are using rechargeable lithium batteries or lightweight PEM (Polymer Electrolyte Membrane) Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Hydrogen can also be used directly to produce heat, very similar to using natural gas for heating applications. The airlines are currently doing a lot of research to design jet engines that can use hydrogen fuel in place of jet fuel. Internal combustion engines have made to work quite nicely using hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen is an extremely flexible fuel source that can fill many, if not most, of our current uses for gaseous and liquid fuels, and as a medium for electrical storage without the hazardous voltages inherent in the storage device presented by batteries.
I think most people have a grasp of how rechargeable batteries work, so I won’t go into much detail here. The one thing that people might not be aware of is their tendency to catch fire and burn, or explode. These problems have been minimized, but not eliminated, with the current designs used in electric cars. PEM hydrogen fuel cells are generally unknown to the public. I want to briefly describe how they work.
My first encounter with a PEM fuel cell was in a small research laboratory at Humboldt State University (now Cal Poly Humboldt). The fuel cell was in the form of a cube about four inches on a side. It consisted of layers of graphite and a thin membrane resembling “plastic wrap.” The graphite layers had been machined to form a serpentine grove allowing air or hydrogen to flow to the surfaces of the graphite layer. The thin membrane (the PEM membrane) was sandwiched between the graphite. It was impervious to relatively large hydrogen molecules, but the tiny amount of catalyst embedded into the membranes allowed the nucleus of hydrogen atoms (protons) to flow through to the other side of the membrane where it combined with the oxygen in air flowing through the other side, creating an electrical charge and thus an electrical current. The hydrogen was just “dead headed” into the groves at a pressure of around 1 psi. It didn’t need to flow through the stack, it just needed to get to the surfaces. A small fan directed room air through the groves on the “oxygen side” of the stack. The air flowed through the stack to maintain a steady source of oxygen and to exhaust the byproducts of this process (pure water vapor). During operation, the cell felt mildly warm. The striking part was the pair of 1/2 inch thick copper electrodes connected to each side of the fuel cell stack. They had to be that size because of the very large amount of power and electrical current delivered by the cell.
All of the large automobile manufacturers have PEM fuel cell cars ready to manufacture if, or when, the market turns to them. I have seen several of these vehicles by various manufacturers and they are beautiful. The fuel cell modules are around one cubic foot, taking up little of the space “under the hood” of the car. High pressure hydrogen storage tanks are located under the floor of the passenger compartment, similar to the location of batteries in electric cars. I have a friend that had the job of testing many of these cars on the roads of California’s highways, byways, deserts and mountains. He said they are wonderful to drive. I suppose just about the same as a modern electric vehicle, which they are.
One of the major advantages of PEM fuel cells for this application is that they are quickly scalable with respect to available sources of fuel. Very large quantities of hydrogen are created from various sources, including fossil fuels. At first this sounds bad, but it provides an easy means of transitioning to hydrogen while green sources of hydrogen are being created. We don’t have to wait until enough electrical power it available on the grid. In fact, electric cars change from the grid, they are not using “green” sources of power, they are just using whatever is there from whatever sources are available.
One of the best features of hydrogen as a fuel is that it can easily be made using solar, wind and other sources of “green” energy by the electrolysis of water. For example, solar electricity can be used to make hydrogen, which can then be stored for future use, or shipped via pipeline or tanker to where it is needed (such as filling stations). Not only can it be easily created, stored and transported, but it can be used for a variety of additional purposes to replace the use of hydrocarbons. If produced locally (such as at the site of a home solar system), the hydrogen can be stored for months until needed, or could be used to fuel an automobile during night time hours. Commercial airlines don’t think they can use batteries because of weight restrictions, but they can store enough hydrogen – so they can join the “green” energy revolution by converting to hydrogen fuel.
The materials used in the construction of a PEM Hydrogen Fuel Cell system are mostly “normal” construction materials (iron, aluminum, copper) with a very small amount of catalyst similar in quantity to a catalytic converter in a car. All of these materials can easily be recycled and pose no new environmental threats.
The point of this is that we are at a point where hydrogen presents a very flexible and robust solution to moving toward a truly “green” energy economy, while batteries are just taking us down the normal path to excessive environmental damage.
The impact of the aging “Baby Boomer” cohort is really starting to be felt throughout Society. Those of us in this category are used to being the center of attention in advertising and many other instances including things like always having brand new schools as communities attempted to keep up with the demand for classrooms. The September 2023 issue of the AARP Bulletin (which is not on my normal reading list) has an article discussing some ways that these aging folks are disrupting the economy. Most of the topics discussed in the article “How We Are Changing America – An aging population is shaking up our country, why it is happening and what it means” are obvious and well known. However, I think the authors may have overlooked some important implications concerning impacts on the workplace and on financial services. I want to spend a little time considering these topics.
The Workplace
The article points out that the number of workers over 65 and over 75 has increased by 117 percent in the past 20 years. That is hardly surprising as it undoubtedly reflects the surge in these populations as the Baby Boomers age. The article points out that many are transitioning from full-time to part-time workers. The article hints that this is a great trend. I suppose it might be great for the readers of AARP because it means there is a growing market for their services.
I am concerned about what this means for the new, younger, workers. That puts them into direct competition with the new group of highly qualified, but inexpensive, older workers. Retired older workers can afford to fill part time positions in a MUCH less expensive way that younger people. Many of the older workers have adequate savings and retirement programs for their needs, but they would like a “little extra” for their more frivolous desires, or as a means of staying active and social. They aren’t necessarily working to make money, many are working “for fun.” Because of this they don’t require full time work, can afford a low wage compared with what their qualifications and experience would normally demand, and don’t require benefits such as health care insurance, sick leave or vacations. Of course they are in demand, they are CHEAP!
The down side of this is that it is also eliminating good paying jobs that come with benefits for those who really do need the money – our younger children and grandchildren. We (the older set) need to stay out of the labor market, thereby opening up good paying opportunities for those who need them. It is NOT a great thing that the market is being flooded with highly effective, highly skilled, inexpensive older “retired” people.
If I am correct about the impacts upon younger workers, we (Society) need to find solutions to solving the older generation’s actual needs. It seems to me that this might be a wonderful place for the government to step in by creating work programs tailored to Society’s needs that are not otherwise being filled. These new jobs must be in addition to the “normal” employment opportunities, and can often be filled by volunteers instead of paid employees. The government already has many opportunities for volunteer work, but not enough to meet the growing needs. We are currently at the leading edge of a tsunami of folks hitting “retirement age” and beyond. We need to be planning and preparing for them just as we did when they began flooding the elementary schools. We need to find ways that give them the potential for small “additional” incomes, for making use of their vast experience and expertise, that give them meaningful and useful jobs that help keep them vital and healthy – all while ensuring that the younger generations can thrive and develop the skills and expertise necessary to keep the country going far into the future.
As usual, I don’t offer a grand scheme for solving this problem – that is a much larger bit than I can take at this time. However, I can point out that it is something that needs to be addressed – and addressed NOW, not sometime in the dim and distant future. We need to be redirecting resources and efforts into this kind of problem – which just happens to fit into the position that I took in my previous blog whereby commercial profits are limited, being redirected (returned) back to Society if oligarchy is to be avoided. As a country and an economy there are sufficient resources to accomplish this sort of job creation activity, but only if the trickle-up aspects of the economy are moderated. (By “trickle-up” I am referring to the flow of money up the wealthy, making the rich richer and the poor poorer.)
Financial Services
Currently Americans hold over $18 trillion in IRA’s and 401(k) retirement plans. The Baby Boomers hold a large share of this wealth, and are intending to use it to supplement their income during their “retirement” years. A common goal is to spend these savings down to zero by the time they die. Either they don’t expect to leave large inheritances to their children, or they have taken care of that concern through property or other means. Their IRA and 401(k) reserves and intended to be spend down to as close to nothing as possible.
Right now the banks and investment companies are busy creating new ways to gain access to these retirement funds because they are a significant source of income. These institutions are in the business of borrowing money in order to lend money, they need the cash in the IRA’s and 401(k) to finance the lending that is the basis of their profits. This is all well and good as long as there are sufficient funds in these accounts. However, as the older folks age and spend down their investments, the lending institutions are likely to start feeling the pinch created by having insufficient funding to support their needs – resulting in pressures to increase the rates that they give, meaning an increase in the cost of loans, meaning a slowing economy and inflation. Perhaps we are already seeing the impact of this. If not, it seems clear that it is coming soon.
Once again, I have no simple solution to this potential problem other than to recognize it and attempt to plan wisely for the future financial volatility. The drying up of a significant portion of the available funds needed to make loans is bound to cause problems for financial institutions and therefore the economy as a whole. I am sure that the FEDS and others are considering this problem – I hope they find the correct solutions. I think the solution will require getting the trickle-up phenomena under control. The escalating concentration of wealth to a very small number of individuals appears to be a significant contributor to many of the looming financial and social problems facing us today, which are likely to get worse in the future if left the concentration of wealth is left unchecked.
During my last blog on cause of inequalities I mentioned my childhood experience of accumulating too many marbles during the marble playing season and then pouring them out onto the playgrounds at the end of the school year so that my friends would have marbles to start the new season during the following year. I also mentioned the idea of the pot latch whereby Native Americans gave back accumulated wealth to their communities. These are great ideas, but I wonder how they might work in a large economy.
Billionaire Chuck Feeney managed to give his $8B away in September of 2020 after spending almost 40 years in doing so. I managed to give all of my marbles away at the end of the school year in a show of “generosity,” even though it wasn’t generous at all – I didn’t need them until the following marble season and I wanted to play marbles.
The real issue isn’t so much about how “generous” a person is when giving away their wealth – it is more about what happens when it is being accumulated. I kept accumulating marbles because I couldn’t figure out how to NOT do so. Once I got to a certain point in my accumulation I had a built in advantage just because of the size of my supply. I could afford to take risks that others couldn’t take, and I could overwhelm the odds of a particular game by adding in more of my marbles. Even though I wasn’t a very good player, my accumulation resulted in my having an advantage so I kept getting more.
I don’t have any idea how Feeney managed to accumulate that much money so early in his life (he must have made it by the time he was 30 years old or so), but I have some guesses. I guess that he was early in his field, allowing him to get a leg up and bias his chances of success. I also assume he kept wages low, kept the cost of services low, and kept the prices high. When it is all said and done, I guess he paid less than he “could” have, and charged more than he actually “needed.” His money came at the expense of his employers and suppliers, and his customers. Apparently he eventually realized that he probably didn’t really need $8B to keep his used Volvo running and started to try to get rid of the extra. But how do you do that once passed a certain point? It can’t be easy. It took him and his foundation forty years to accomplish it.
Why should this matter? It matters because it took all of that money away from those that got too little and/or paid too much. The money trickled up to him even though he had no use for it – or even a way to deal with it effectively. Bill Gates experienced (and still experiences) something similar. The other day I read that he is now worth $120B, up from about $80B ten years ago. He has given away around $50B to his foundation so far, but isn’t keeping up on the growth. While it is nice to hear that he is trying to give it all away, how is it that he gets to be the one who decides where it should go and how it should be used. Afterall, it is all caused by over charging for his products and services and under paying his employees and suppliers. I suppose those folks would rather have had a say in how their money was to be used.
The Scientific American article that I referenced in my last blog post (“Is Inequality Inevitable”, November 2019) suggested that there are two major contributing characteristics of our economic system that might contribute to the current out-of-control economic inequality where a small handful of people own more than 50% of the entire world’s wealth.
The first problem is the failure to adequately redistribute the wealth. Their model found that a redistribution for each transaction based upon the difference between the “agent’s” (the company or individual making the transaction) wealth and the mean wealth in society. This has to be in the form of a complementary subsidy for the poor (those below the mean) based upon their distance from the mean. This has to be in the form of redistributing the “excess” wealth to the poor, not in the form of tax that is then used to do things by the government. Taxes are necessary in addition to the redistribution in order to fund government.
The second problem is related to the fact that things are less expensive for those with wealth. It is expensive to be poor. For example, there are no bank checking fees if you keep sufficient funds in the account. If not, you have to pay a large fee to use checks. It is also very inexpensive to purchase a home if you have sufficient investments to just move investments to a house instead of another form of investment such as bonds. Otherwise there are large fees, mortgage payments, expensive insurance, etc. Not long ago Warren Buffet pointed out that his secretary pays more income tax that he does even though he “makes” billions of dollars a year. The list of cost savings from being rich is very long indeed.
There is also a third problem that sort of puts a fine point on the issues caused by the first two. Negative wealth is a dangerous and widespread problem that severely limits the poor from taking advantage of “good deals” and adds a large additional cost that does not exist for those above the mean. Negative wealth includes things like student loans, mortgages beyond the value of the property, personal loans etc.
This leaves a rather large question of how could these things (especially the first two) be rectified? Each is almost impossible to visualize. For example, “taxing” to redistribute funds might mean an income tax based upon wealth rather than income. This actually seems to make more sense than our current approach since “income” isn’t realized until investments are sold. Therefore, it is possible to live on the principal of an investment which is not “income” because it was already there while not paying for increase in value until it is sold. Owning stocks might be an example. They can achieve unspecified increases in value without facing taxes until they are sold. Of course it wouldn’t work to tax the unsold value because the prices fluctuate and I might have to sell them at a price below what I was taxed. A small step forward would be to “tax” my income by my net worth rather than my “income.” Removing the “extra” costs for being poor is much more difficult. I suppose it might be feasible to provide an allotment covering the extra costs associated with being poor.
In my opinion, expenses such as student loans and the cost of health care shouldn’t exist. Students should get paid to got to college, not have to pay. They are working hard to provide a value asset to government and businesses, an asset that should be paid for by those most benefiting from that work – which seems to be government and business, not so much the student. The economy is based upon the availability for educated and trained employees – the economy should pay for those services. Health care is beyond being questionable – it is the moral and ethical responsibility for society to take care of their sick and injured.
I want to leave this blog with the question of how do we change the economy to ensure an equitable redistribution of wealth to prevent oligarchy and the unfair suffering of those that because of random processes find themselves far below the mean? As noted in the referenced Scientific American article, the fact that simple and plausible models of the free market give rise to economies that are anything but free and fair should be both a cause for alarm and a call for action. We should both be alarmed and trying to do things to prevent the run-away transfer of wealth upward to the wealthy.
I recently came across an article in the November 2019 issue of Scientific American. The article “The Inescapable Casino” by Bruce M. Boghosian addresses the perplexing explosion of the “very rich” in the United States and elsewhere. The author explores some very basic, and surprising, mathematical modeling that seem to indicate that economic systems based upon “free trade” have a built-in inexorable tendency toward the accumulation of wealth, resulting in the creation of oligarchies.
The modeling was performed to better understand what happens in a “free trade” environment such as might be illustrated in a yard sale, or possible a real estate sale of residential properties. The underlying assumption of this modeling is that a “fair trade” does not impact the “wealth” of either the seller or the purchaser – it is just a change in the form of the wealth. In all other cases one side wins and one side loses. They simplified the model by assuming a fixed (arbitrary) rate of “profit” rate for winners with an equivalent “loss” by the losers. They modeled a pool of traders (1,000 in the example) starting with identical wealth and then trading pairwise with other members of the pool. All transactions were totally arbitrary, with a 50/50 chance of winning or losing for each transaction. First an arbitrary pair traded, then another arbitrary pair traded – repeating the pairwise trading thousands (or millions) of times. Amazingly, what always happened was that a massive inequality resulted. One person found their average wealth increasing, while all the rest found their average wealth decreasing, tending toward zero as they conducted more and more transactions. In every case, the person that accumulated the wealth was the first person to win in the first transaction! The tiny difference in wealth created by the outcome of the first transaction was sufficient to bias the overall outcome of the experiment. It didn’t depend upon skill, knowledge, good looks or any other attribute. They all started off with identical wealth and were treated symmetrically – it just depended upon who happened to win the first round of the game – pure luck!
The contention of the author is that while rather surprising, this is what actually happens in very large economic systems. He points to the example of what happened following the breakup of the U.S.S.R. resulting in the dramatic wealth redistribution by their governments and the concomitant jump in wealth-attained advantage arising from sudden privatization and deregulation. Formally communist countries became partial oligarchies almost overnight.
The modeling pointed to an interesting solution to the problem of the strong tendency of free-trade markets to create ever increasing inequalities, along with the creation of oligarchies, is to ensure that “excess” profits of the “winners” are redistributed back to the “losers.” This is similar to taxation with the exception that the redistribution needs to be to the losers, not to the government. There needs to be a significant direct transfer of wealth back to the losers or the system “blows up,” causing economic disasters for everyone, including the new oligarchs.
This reminded me of when I used to play marbles on the playground in elementary school. I would start the “marble season” with a couple of “shooters” and a handful of trading stock marbles. The trading marbles were of no particular value but were required to play the game, winning and losing them as the games progressed. I was a mediocre marble player – I couldn’t do any of the fancy trick shots and seldom got on a “winning streak.” However, I was consistent and found that my stash of marbles kept growing – especially for games where there was an advantage to having more marbles in play at once. By the end of marble season I had accumulated almost all of the marbles in play, more than a gallon of them. I found that by the first of May I had so many of the marbles, and so few had enough left to play, that I was forced to stop playing because of the lack of playing partners! I had all of the marbles and that ended the games. My solution was to pour all of my marbles (except my original starter set) onto the playground, effectively redistributing the wealth to all. We could then resume play for the rest of the season, but most importantly we could play again during the following season. I found it necessary to do this redistribution for two years while at that school, and a final time when I “graduated” from elementary school and moved on to middle school.
The interesting part of my “marble wealth” is that I had no use for the marbles other than to play the game. They had no value, had no meaning, and were intrinsically worthless (like dollars). But they allowed me to play the game. The only way I could keep getting value from my accumulation of wealth was to give it back to those that had lost their marbles.
Another intriguing example of this problem is the game of Monopoly. I used to like the game but found it perplexing that it was so difficult to reliably win. It seemed that there was always an inequality that made it clear who would win from very early in the game. There seemed to be very little opportunity to learn or gain skills necessary to become the winner. It felt like a foregone conclusion who win from very early in the game. After 2 to 3 hours someone had all of the wealth, the rest of the players were broke, and the game came to an end. My friends and I wanted to extend the game beyond a couple of hours and therefore modified the rules allowing for a redistribution of wealth from the obvious winner to the other players (it was too long ago for me to recall the details of how we did the redistribution). We were then able to keep a game going for days, with the more interesting outcome that the identity of the “rich” person could change – a poor person had an opportunity to advance. The problem with this new set of rules is that there was no ending criteria, we could keep the game going for as long as we wanted – it achieved a kind of forced stability.
A third example might include the idea of “potlatch” as practiced by many Native American tribes. My understanding is that periodically someone would accumulate “too much” wealth, meaning that others did not have enough wealth. The solution was for the wealthy person to throw a grand “give away” party, effectively transferring much of their wealth and positions back to the other members of the tribe. It was considered a great honor to do so, meaning that the gift giver achieved an increase in esteem and influence – wealth that carried real meaning and importance.
It seems plausible that redistributing accumulating wealth might be highly advantageous to everyone in a society, including the person that is judged the “winner” in terms of personal wealth. Perhaps a re-thinking of the concepts of wealth, power, value and similar topics could inoculate the society from the problems of extreme inequality and the dangers associated with the formation of oligarchies.
Last night was one of those “slow” nights, so I watched the movie “Interstellar” again. Once again I found it to be rather silly, with extremely questionable (usually wrong) “physics” used to back up a rather confusing story line. However, there was a short little scene that caught my attention. It was the scene where the hero is rebuilding his friendly robot. He was setting the “pre-set levels” for various attributes, including the level for “humor.” He started with a high setting close to “10” on the scale. The robot responded with a rather subtle, sarcastic, non-funny joke. The hero didn’t like that, so he set the level down to 5.5, getting a knock-knock joke. That seemed too low of a setting, so I think he moved it up a notch (at least I would have done that). He was setting other pre-sets for things like affection, chattiness, etc. It was a humorous scene, one that I almost missed.
However, I woke in the middle of the night with some really odd thoughts about how this might apply to us humans. I lay there in bed thinking about what if we were controlled by “apps” downloaded from outside, perhaps from some version of “The Matrix?” What if I got app v3.4 for “love,” with a setting of 6? What if my partner got the v3.7 version with a setting of 5? Would this explain the sometime mysterious misalignment with our conversations and our understanding of our “proper” respective roles? Would this make her “too” social, or perhaps me “too” demanding?
At first this seemed to just be the outcome of some rather odd, and now forgotten, dream. But perhaps it is closer to the truth than I imagined.
It seems apparent that many, perhaps most, of our understanding of “how things should be” come from outside influences generated by things such as “society” norms, parental guidance (and scoldings), opinions of friends, teachers, our spiritual leaders, music, books and many other sources. These rather random inputs coalesce into something similar to a version of an “app” for life. If we happen to live in an isolated, stable, social situation there is a pretty good chance that both my partner and myself have the same version of a particular “app,” maybe even with similar pre-set settings. This would result in a wonderfully “free” relationship where we both seamlessly agreed with each other because our beliefs are the same. I could do anything that I “wanted to” and it would be “accepted” by my partner. I wouldn’t necessarily be free to do anything, just anything that I want to do because I would only “want” to do what she also “wants” me to do. Totally accepting the confines of one’s situation means freedom – you never come up against the boundaries.
Unfortunately, the real world is not a uniform set of “rules” – society is governed by a mixed, inconsistent, incompatible set of rules, mores, morals and guidelines – including descriptions of what we “should” want, and not want, to do. It is as if we have many “apps” available that might get activated differently when needed. It is sort of like the three versions of “solitaire” that I loaded on my phone. Sometimes I want a “traditional” looking version, so I load that one. At other times I might be feeling more whimsical so I load one with cartoons and music clips. Each might also be set with different pre-sets, so one deals every card and another deals three cards at a time. They are similar, cover similar needs, but are actually quite different. It sometimes feels that way to me. Sometimes I happen to be quite tolerant to other people’s foibles, at other times I am sometimes quite intolerant – becoming frustrated and perhaps even angry. In retrospect it is quite difficult to determine exactly what happened to cause the change. Perhaps some “setting” launched one app instead of the other.
This line of thinking brings me to a rather optimistic, but confusing conclusion. It seems that many of my “reactions” originate from somewhere “outside” of myself. They came from things that I learned from others and decided to accept as my own. I didn’t make them up, I just elected to use them. Maybe I can elect to use a different set of “apps”, ones that more closely align with what I want. Perhaps I can reload some of them and do a bit of a system “re-boot.” If these apps came from the outside I don’t have to have pride of “authorship” – they were generous offerings from others, but perhaps they aren’t working so great. Maybe I can change my mind – maybe I can find freedom by more closely aligning my “apps” with what I want to be.
I am not proposing that there is any “outside entity” downloading our programming as is depicted in movies such as “The Matrix,” but I am proposing that something similar happens to all of us as we grow up and go through life. It seems that generally we have very little to say about the “programming” that we receive from our “teachers” (including everyone that is important to us). We learn what it means to be “good” in our social contexts – and usually agree with the suggestions. However, when these definitions are in conflict, or when we fail to comply, we tend to judge ourselves quite badly – even though we have actually done nothing wrong.
I am convinced that there is a sliver of a chance of changing that situation in important ways. I think we can learn to see ourselves and our actions more clearly, from a point of view that is much closer to the person that we want to be. Since we have many inconsistent and conflicting points of view, why not choose another more consistent one that matches our desired point of view. Why chose one at all? Maybe we can stay present “in the moment” and be flexible enough to make the right choices at the time that they need to be made instead of depending upon old, outdated, and wrong templates gathered willy nilly in the past. Maybe we can learn to choose “the path with heart” instead of just crashing though life in a thoughtless, and painful, way.
I suggest that while there are many “teachings” (such as some flavors of Buddhism) that can help us to find a new, less painful path – they are only guides for self-discovery. They can not be relied upon to provide a detailed path for us, we need to explore and find that for ourselves. It is comforting for me to understand that I have been “programmed” by many outside events and teachers who knew not what they were teaching, and that I have the choice to find my own path to a life of my choosing.
