I have just recently been through a time of perplexity and complexity. It occurs to me that whatever good we might accomplish in this life is not done by raw intelligence, information, or determination alone. It requires knowledge, skill, and subtle characteristics such as restraint and judgment. Much knowledge, and many of these characteristics, come from our past, handed down through generations. There are at least two forces in our modern world that threaten past knowledge and character development.
In our modern world, run as it is from electronic connections, we value the ‘new and improved’ over the ‘tried and true’. The newest electronic equipment or software package is desired, even when older ones perform tasks perfectly well. Often the promise of the new simply means more applications that are seldom, or never, used anyway. Progress is always seen as forward and upward towards something better. But, of course that assumption depends entirely on what one defines as better. A straight line can also go straight down. Without the past we have no way of knowing what trajectory we are on.
Another difficulty we face today is the question, which past do we learn from? Multiculturalism has clouded this issue by attempting to make all pasts equally valuable. To the individual all pasts may be equally valid. But to a culture it is not so simple. The past that has given us freedom, democracy, order, the rule of law, and economic opportunity is not the same past that is based upon tyrants, social justice, bribery, or the collective domination of community. For example, science, which today is often seen as anti-religious, was born only from Christianity where the habit of reason and critical thinking was actually encouraged for centuries. Science did not arise spontaneously in other cultures where different religions held sway such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism. Not all pasts are of the same significance in the modern culture.
At one time, humans were thought to exist in our own sphere, somewhere between the angels and the animals. With this knowledge we were able to act benevolently towards the latter and reverentially towards the former. It generated a thoughtful approach to life and our own proper role. This idea has been mostly abandoned, and modern man sees himself as just another animal. Animals are seldom benevolent towards one another, and have little regard for the future. They do not plan ahead and the capacity of self-restraint or wisdom. That’s progress, of a sort.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
TOP SOIL
Can an object have conflicting characteristics simultaneously?
• Could an object be strong and flexible at the same time?
• How about an object that is soft and rigid simultaneously?
• Could something drain and retain all at once?
Well, in fact, these kinds of objects are quite common. Almost all biological objects are combinations of attributes, often in opposition to each other. Wood is strong and flexible. Sponges are soft and rigid. Good top soil both drains and retains water.
Man-made objects are often quite different. Humans tend to focus on the characteristic they need for a given task and engineer for that task over everything else. Modern industry simply doesn’t know how to make top soil. It can make steel that is strong and inflexible, or steel cables that are flexible, but lack the same strength. And modern agriculture usually practices water retention and water drainage as two separate issues, never practiced at the same time, in the same place, or in the same way.
Modern humans have bedroom communities in which to live, but they have to work many miles away. Men have stores where they get their food, but the food must be shipped long distances. Mankind has an extended learning period to function in the world, so they put their children into school far away from home, work or the natural world to learn.
Could it be possible for people to live in small communities scattered across the land, live and work in their own fields and businesses close by, and educate their children in their own homes or businesses? That was the way it was for centuries. Many now believe that is impossible because we are now too big. But there is reason the world must be structured the way in is in the United States now. In fact, most of the world is not structured in the modern way at all.
Our present world of full of these odd behaviors developed only after World War II through government programs and incentives. The government purposely encouraged the movement of people off the land and into towns in order to benefit large industry. This was part of the progressive dream. Society would take care of us all and the efficiency of society was all that was important. Not the sanctity of freedom and human life. In fact, our country accomplished this massive reallocation of the population, greater than Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung ever dreamed of, in the course of a single generation.
The world could be more like top soil, more organic, more able to retain and drain water simultaneously, if it were more organic.
• Could an object be strong and flexible at the same time?
• How about an object that is soft and rigid simultaneously?
• Could something drain and retain all at once?
Well, in fact, these kinds of objects are quite common. Almost all biological objects are combinations of attributes, often in opposition to each other. Wood is strong and flexible. Sponges are soft and rigid. Good top soil both drains and retains water.
Man-made objects are often quite different. Humans tend to focus on the characteristic they need for a given task and engineer for that task over everything else. Modern industry simply doesn’t know how to make top soil. It can make steel that is strong and inflexible, or steel cables that are flexible, but lack the same strength. And modern agriculture usually practices water retention and water drainage as two separate issues, never practiced at the same time, in the same place, or in the same way.
Modern humans have bedroom communities in which to live, but they have to work many miles away. Men have stores where they get their food, but the food must be shipped long distances. Mankind has an extended learning period to function in the world, so they put their children into school far away from home, work or the natural world to learn.
Could it be possible for people to live in small communities scattered across the land, live and work in their own fields and businesses close by, and educate their children in their own homes or businesses? That was the way it was for centuries. Many now believe that is impossible because we are now too big. But there is reason the world must be structured the way in is in the United States now. In fact, most of the world is not structured in the modern way at all.
Our present world of full of these odd behaviors developed only after World War II through government programs and incentives. The government purposely encouraged the movement of people off the land and into towns in order to benefit large industry. This was part of the progressive dream. Society would take care of us all and the efficiency of society was all that was important. Not the sanctity of freedom and human life. In fact, our country accomplished this massive reallocation of the population, greater than Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung ever dreamed of, in the course of a single generation.
The world could be more like top soil, more organic, more able to retain and drain water simultaneously, if it were more organic.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
HOW BEES HAVE ALWAYS LIVED
Bees have been around for a long time. Most of that time, literally millions of years, they have built their hives on their own, in hollow trees or caves, or even sometimes in the open.
Humans have been stealing their honey for perhaps fifteen thousand years. No, I have no personal recollection of that, but that is what people who study such things tell me.
People appear to have been “keeping” bees in some form or another for about four thousand years. There are historical records from Egypt and even older civilizations that make reference to beekeeping operations. But for most of that time, beekeeping mostly just consisted of providing a hollow log of straw skep. The bees themselves were usually killed each year in order to extract the honey.
It wasn’t until 1851, about one hundred and sixty years ago, that Lorenzo Langstroth invented the modern bee hive with moveable frames. This invention allowed easy manipulation of the bees and extraction of excess honey without destroying the bees. But this hive is not a large departure from their normal wild existence, and bees seemed to thrive just fine.
In 1851 the majority of people still lived a rural existence, closely tied to agriculture and the land. Even those who lived in small towns usually had gardens and often domestic animals. Not everyone kept bees, but many did.
Bee keeping, for the next one hundred years after the Langstroth hive, was a modest affair with a few hives set aside on a corner of many farms, and mostly just ignored until honey harvest. Requeening had to occur every few years, but it was not religiously attended to because the bees did pretty well on their own. Farming was basically a nurturing activity, not the extractive activity it has become today. Bees were valued for their pollination, honey and wax for candles. They were not yet an industry.
But that has all changed in the past few years. In my next post I will explore the massive changes that have occurred very rapidly in the last few years.
Humans have been stealing their honey for perhaps fifteen thousand years. No, I have no personal recollection of that, but that is what people who study such things tell me.
People appear to have been “keeping” bees in some form or another for about four thousand years. There are historical records from Egypt and even older civilizations that make reference to beekeeping operations. But for most of that time, beekeeping mostly just consisted of providing a hollow log of straw skep. The bees themselves were usually killed each year in order to extract the honey.
It wasn’t until 1851, about one hundred and sixty years ago, that Lorenzo Langstroth invented the modern bee hive with moveable frames. This invention allowed easy manipulation of the bees and extraction of excess honey without destroying the bees. But this hive is not a large departure from their normal wild existence, and bees seemed to thrive just fine.
In 1851 the majority of people still lived a rural existence, closely tied to agriculture and the land. Even those who lived in small towns usually had gardens and often domestic animals. Not everyone kept bees, but many did.
Bee keeping, for the next one hundred years after the Langstroth hive, was a modest affair with a few hives set aside on a corner of many farms, and mostly just ignored until honey harvest. Requeening had to occur every few years, but it was not religiously attended to because the bees did pretty well on their own. Farming was basically a nurturing activity, not the extractive activity it has become today. Bees were valued for their pollination, honey and wax for candles. They were not yet an industry.
But that has all changed in the past few years. In my next post I will explore the massive changes that have occurred very rapidly in the last few years.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
OF SPACE, TIME, AND BEES
Modern urban life has removed us to a great extent from natural cycles and, therefore, a feeling for changes as they occur through time. The study of history is sometimes seen by modern students, and many lay people, as irrelevant and useless. Geography is also sometimes seen in an archaic light. There seems to be less interest in where things are located, and why they are there, than there once was. Now we just want a gps systems to tell us how to get there.
But the distribution of events through time and space can sometimes shed light on current events that are explanatory, and sometimes even prescriptive. This blog will be the first in a series of blogs in which I will explore how bee keeping has changed through time, and how bee distribution in space has had an effect on all people whether they know it or not.
Space and time are the constant parameters of the human drama. Much of physics is devoted to these subjects. Chemistry is about invisible events that occur in short time spans and within a miniscule topography. Biology has adopted (I believe wrongly) how living things change through time as a central tenet.
Over the next few weeks I will discuss how bees and bee keeping has changed over time and in relationship to space. I hope you come back and visit.
But the distribution of events through time and space can sometimes shed light on current events that are explanatory, and sometimes even prescriptive. This blog will be the first in a series of blogs in which I will explore how bee keeping has changed through time, and how bee distribution in space has had an effect on all people whether they know it or not.
Space and time are the constant parameters of the human drama. Much of physics is devoted to these subjects. Chemistry is about invisible events that occur in short time spans and within a miniscule topography. Biology has adopted (I believe wrongly) how living things change through time as a central tenet.
Over the next few weeks I will discuss how bees and bee keeping has changed over time and in relationship to space. I hope you come back and visit.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
QUANTITY AND QUALITY
We often make a distinction between quantity and quality. In chemistry it is sometimes sufficient to know that something is present or not. What is in the water? At other times it is important to know the exact amount of something. Exactly how much mercury is in the water? However, there are times when both are important, and we fool ourselves when we ask the wrong questions.
For example, we often ask ourselves, “should I do something, or not”. This would seem like a qualitative question like, “is something there or not?” But the truth is that we are going to do “some thing”. Maybe we will only sit and stare in indecision, but that is doing something. We are never going to do “or not” (unless we die). Likewise, there is always going to be something anywhere we look. We can’t look carefully at water and not find something there, even if it is only water.
Deciding to do something still doesn’t tell us how much of it to do. One can decide to go to a movie, but that doesn’t mean they must do nothing else all day. One needs to acquire money, but that doesn’t always mean we should do nothing but acquire money. Could there be a time when one has enough?
So while the concepts of quantity and quality may be useful in certain narrow areas of study, they are not of much use in day to day living. This is because there is always a quantity involved. The big question is “how much”. And the question of “how much” is a value question which humans are very poor at answering. It is a rare human who voluntarily says, “I have enough”.
For example, we often ask ourselves, “should I do something, or not”. This would seem like a qualitative question like, “is something there or not?” But the truth is that we are going to do “some thing”. Maybe we will only sit and stare in indecision, but that is doing something. We are never going to do “or not” (unless we die). Likewise, there is always going to be something anywhere we look. We can’t look carefully at water and not find something there, even if it is only water.
Deciding to do something still doesn’t tell us how much of it to do. One can decide to go to a movie, but that doesn’t mean they must do nothing else all day. One needs to acquire money, but that doesn’t always mean we should do nothing but acquire money. Could there be a time when one has enough?
So while the concepts of quantity and quality may be useful in certain narrow areas of study, they are not of much use in day to day living. This is because there is always a quantity involved. The big question is “how much”. And the question of “how much” is a value question which humans are very poor at answering. It is a rare human who voluntarily says, “I have enough”.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
HAS THE WORM TURNED?
It may surprise some people to know that earthworms are not native to the North American continent. They were introduced here by early colonists when they brought earthworm cocoons embedded in potted plants they brought with them. Through agriculture, fishing and on their own earthworms have been disseminated across the continent. In some forested area they are spreading at the rate of about seven meters a year.
The glaciated forests of North America existed for millions of years without earthworms as part of their soil makeup. These forests depend on a rich top soil layer of slowly composting leaf litter and a unique microbial population to supply nutrients to the thin mineral soils. As the worms invade an area, they hasten the breakdown of the leaf litter. The trees of the northern forests of the US depend on the leaf litter to help tree seedlings to survive. The thick leaf litter provides protection against temperature extremes, moisture loss and protection from browsing animals. The leaf litter is essential to seedling survival. So as the leaf litter layer is destroyed by earthworms, the reproductive success of the forest is compromised.
Normally, this earthworm activity has been seen as a good thing because it hastens nutrient liberation and spreads nutrients deep into the soil. However, this conclusion was reached based upon the studies of Charles Darwin from the limited sample of the English countryside. There is no indication that he knew earthworms were not universally distributed. What may be good for a damp cold climate may be less beneficial to a different environment. The reported thick top soil of the American mid-west may have existed because there were no earthworms to hasten decomposition. We'll never know since they are now ubiquitous.
There is also evidence that the microbial makeup of the northern soils is changed with invasions of the earthworm. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the changes in leaf litter and soil nutrition. But there is growing suspicion that the collection of earthworm mucus within the soil structure may also account for some of the changes in microbial balance.
Researchers at the Hebei Agricultural University in China examined earthworm mucus for antibacterial activity and found a short peptide (small protein like chemical) that possessed antibacterial properties against several common bacterial strains. What role this chemical plays in the actual protection of the earthworm, the amount produced and how broadly this peptide protects against bacteria is yet to be determined.
Once again we see that "Man doesn't know what he doesn't know."
The glaciated forests of North America existed for millions of years without earthworms as part of their soil makeup. These forests depend on a rich top soil layer of slowly composting leaf litter and a unique microbial population to supply nutrients to the thin mineral soils. As the worms invade an area, they hasten the breakdown of the leaf litter. The trees of the northern forests of the US depend on the leaf litter to help tree seedlings to survive. The thick leaf litter provides protection against temperature extremes, moisture loss and protection from browsing animals. The leaf litter is essential to seedling survival. So as the leaf litter layer is destroyed by earthworms, the reproductive success of the forest is compromised.
Normally, this earthworm activity has been seen as a good thing because it hastens nutrient liberation and spreads nutrients deep into the soil. However, this conclusion was reached based upon the studies of Charles Darwin from the limited sample of the English countryside. There is no indication that he knew earthworms were not universally distributed. What may be good for a damp cold climate may be less beneficial to a different environment. The reported thick top soil of the American mid-west may have existed because there were no earthworms to hasten decomposition. We'll never know since they are now ubiquitous.
There is also evidence that the microbial makeup of the northern soils is changed with invasions of the earthworm. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the changes in leaf litter and soil nutrition. But there is growing suspicion that the collection of earthworm mucus within the soil structure may also account for some of the changes in microbial balance.
Researchers at the Hebei Agricultural University in China examined earthworm mucus for antibacterial activity and found a short peptide (small protein like chemical) that possessed antibacterial properties against several common bacterial strains. What role this chemical plays in the actual protection of the earthworm, the amount produced and how broadly this peptide protects against bacteria is yet to be determined.
Once again we see that "Man doesn't know what he doesn't know."
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
LIVING TOGETHER
Sometimes the most important truth can be hidden in plain sight. There are over 250,000 flowering plants that have been described. That is probably a modest estimate, but I am not a Botanist and don’t want to over-sell. There are over 750,000 insects described. That number is actually much bigger and is expected to go over a million.
Together this means that two thirds of all life forms are monopolized by these two groups. This is not an accident. These two groups of living things live together in an intimate way. Flowering plants could not exist without the service of insects to aid them in sexual reproduction, which we call pollination. And most insects could not exist without the shelter, surface, and food (nectar, pollen and plant parts) provided by the plants. These two groups are completely symbiotic: dependent on living together.
This concept of living together is a delicate and changing arrangement. There are flowers like Passiflora incarnata, the Maypop, common in the southern United States in areas like Tennessee, that are only pollinated by Xylocopa virginica, a carpenter bee. If the bee is lost, the flower will also become extinct. Or the “bearclaw poppy”, Arctomecon humilis, which is only pollinated by a solitary bee, named Perdita meconis, unknown until just a few years ago. If the flower is lost the bee will go extinct. These last two live near the Virgin River in Southwest Utah, or Northwest Arizona, as you see it.
Sometimes this balance between organisms is upset and we call the result predation, or parasitism, or disease, or extinction, or pollution or some other term. The problem is that it is very difficult to know what will upset the balance between any two or three organisms. How do we know what to avoid, or how to avoid it. It is akin to a complex structure built out of toothpicks. It is hard to predict which tooth pick can be removed and which cannot without causing the collapse of the whole system. Generally humans don’t have a clue what we are doing in this regard.
Mankind has put a lot of energy into killing insects. Many insects compete with us for our food. Some insects transmit diseases. But ironically, mankind relies heavily on the flowering plants for food and fiber. High mountain peaches, cherries, apples, pears, and apricots are just a few of the hundreds of plants we find desirable that rely on insects. So if plants need insects, and insects need plants, and man needs plants, then doesn’t man need insects?
Together this means that two thirds of all life forms are monopolized by these two groups. This is not an accident. These two groups of living things live together in an intimate way. Flowering plants could not exist without the service of insects to aid them in sexual reproduction, which we call pollination. And most insects could not exist without the shelter, surface, and food (nectar, pollen and plant parts) provided by the plants. These two groups are completely symbiotic: dependent on living together.
This concept of living together is a delicate and changing arrangement. There are flowers like Passiflora incarnata, the Maypop, common in the southern United States in areas like Tennessee, that are only pollinated by Xylocopa virginica, a carpenter bee. If the bee is lost, the flower will also become extinct. Or the “bearclaw poppy”, Arctomecon humilis, which is only pollinated by a solitary bee, named Perdita meconis, unknown until just a few years ago. If the flower is lost the bee will go extinct. These last two live near the Virgin River in Southwest Utah, or Northwest Arizona, as you see it.
Sometimes this balance between organisms is upset and we call the result predation, or parasitism, or disease, or extinction, or pollution or some other term. The problem is that it is very difficult to know what will upset the balance between any two or three organisms. How do we know what to avoid, or how to avoid it. It is akin to a complex structure built out of toothpicks. It is hard to predict which tooth pick can be removed and which cannot without causing the collapse of the whole system. Generally humans don’t have a clue what we are doing in this regard.
Mankind has put a lot of energy into killing insects. Many insects compete with us for our food. Some insects transmit diseases. But ironically, mankind relies heavily on the flowering plants for food and fiber. High mountain peaches, cherries, apples, pears, and apricots are just a few of the hundreds of plants we find desirable that rely on insects. So if plants need insects, and insects need plants, and man needs plants, then doesn’t man need insects?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
