On the Importance of Wetlands (For People Who Know Absolutely Nothing about Them)

What is a Wetland?

There are many who may not know the meaning of the word wetland. Basically, it’s any kind of wet habitat including bogs, swamps, marshes, pond habitats, and more. The definition has been fought over for some time. According to naturalists, an area is a “wetland” if it contains either water, and/or a specialized wetland soil, and/or plant life specialized to live in wet areas. According to the legal definition, a wetland must have all three components to be a wetland. Unfortunately, even this definition isn’t crystal-clear.

Many difficulties in defining wetlands present themselves. Contentious issues include how large a wetland must be (that pond in your backyard, or the Great Dismal Swamp?), and the location of its borders. In nature, ecosystems change types slowly, fading from wetland to dry area over a small to large land expanse. However, in today’s world of property and boundaries, it became necessary to put strict boundaries around wetlands. The job of identifying wetlands and their legal boundaries is often up to the Army Corps of Engineers. It is also their job to issue permits required for developers to destroy, fill in, and build over or near a wetland.

Wetlands can be formed in several ways, and are subject to natural succession, meaning they are constantly changing, growing, and/or fading into forest. Many wetlands are formed in pit or basins in the ground, which were carved there long ago by glaciers, floods, earthquakes, and even meteors. Wetlands can also form next to rivers and streams, developing specialized soils and plants as they are continually flooded by run-off waters. Unique wetland formations include mangrove swamps, which develop very slowly, actually making soil out of the mangrove leaves for the next generation of trees to grow in. Wetlands are some of the most variable ecosystems in nature.

Why do Wetlands Matter?

Now that we know what a wetland is, why are they important to protect? Aren’t swamps usually thought of as nasty? They’re difficult to farm and build on or near. They stink, and they are home to scary creatures like alligators and misquotes. Who cares if they are filled in? Though estimates differ, we are certain from modern land surveying techniques that the amount of wetland in the U.S. has drastically decreased. But why care?

Wetlands boat a plethora of benefits to humans, both practical and more abstract. Practically, they provide flood abatement, erosion prevention, storm protection, water quality improvement, and economic benefits such as local fishing industries. By slowing down and soaking up floodwaters, wetlands protect surrounding areas from damage. They also prevent soil from getting washed away (erosion), which makes for better farming and land quality. By absorbing and processing heavy metals, toxins, and pollution, wetlands additionally improve water quality, meaning there is less artificial processing needed for our tap-water. Many local areas depend on fishing and harvesting of wetlands, such as areas surrounding the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.

In more abstract terms, wetlands provide aesthetic and recreational benefits. For bird-hunters and bird-watchers alike, it’s important to know that wetlands are critical temporary habitats for many water birds, game birds, and song birds. Many hikers and nature lovers have the quality of their lives increased by having access to wetland parks. When it comes to educational value, the great variety of wetland types and the processes they perform means it’s near impossible to find a better place to teach children and students about ecosystems. For those who care about wildlife for the sake of wildlife, and for those who hunt small game or engage in fur-trapping, bear in mind that wetlands are home to many types of animals, including the beautiful-furred mink, otters, many rodents, salamanders, frogs, toads, and many beautiful fish and birds.

Even if you completely ignored the abstract benefits of wetlands, the practical benefits alone are enough for any logical person to reconsider their stance on destruction of wetlands. People in Virginia take for granted that wetlands prevent even more destructive floods than the ones we sometimes experience. Who wants more of their tax dollars spent and more of their neighborhood land replaced by expensive water purifying facilities? Who wouldn’t rather see a green border of trees and shrubs leading down into a rich, wet ecosystem of life with a massive variety of practical usage?

Are Wetlands Protected?

You must be thinking: there are environmentalists everywhere, so surely wetlands are protected? The answer is convoluted. Some protection is in place; however, it is largely deemed far from adequate protection. Judge for yourself as the protections are briefly explained.

In order to build near or on a wetland, one must acquire permits through the Federal program, and sometimes pass through State permitting as well, depending on the State. The Army Corps of Engineers ultimately decides whether to issue a permit, and though they take pains to hear input from the public and from the environmental organizations, they can essentially approve whatever they want. Theoretically, they are weighing costs and benefits—for example, is this new shopping center or apartment complex really worth the destruction of such a useful natural system? But since few people have a working understanding of just how valuable wetlands are, it’s not unfair to doubt that they make the best decisions.

The good news is that for every wetland destroyed, mitigation must be made. Mitigation means reducing the painfulness of an action. Developers building on wetlands must, by law, either help restore a degraded wetland, or build another new wetland. Isn’t this great? Isn’t this all we really need? The answer is yes—if it actually effectively worked. Unfortunately, restored and newly constructed wetlands most often fail. This is due to our lack of understanding and ability to emulate natural processes. It’s also due to the fact that no rules exist about maintaining the new wetland. If they want, developers can simply scoop up some dirt, fill in some water, throw in some bushes, and never touch the new “wetland” again, not caring how long it lasts or if it’s suitable for wildlife.

As you can see, protections for wetlands have some fairly serious potential problems. However, this isn’t the worst of it. Thanks to a loophole in Federal law, developers are allowed to destroy wetlands that are not obviously connected to other bodies of water. These means many isolated wetlands, such as prairie potholes critical to migrating water birds, have no Federal protection at all. Some State permits may exist, but again, the decisions are often made without a working understanding of the practical and abstract usefulness of wetlands. Surveys are showing rapid loss of these defenseless isolated wetlands.

Why You Should Help

If I have convinced you that wetlands are at least slightly important, I have done well. I will never pretend to make a life or death case for wetlands, using emotional or fear-based attacks and often over-exaggerating. If all wetlands disappear, we can create lots more water cleaning facilities. If half our birds die, the world will eventually get over it. If some communities economically die, and some are devastatingly flooded out, well, maybe that’s nothing new. But consider if that is the optimal choice or not. If there is any way to prevent it, don’t you want those small fishing businesses and communities to thrive? Do you want people to lose their homes, livelihoods, and lives in increased floods? Do you want to take your children to the park to feed the ducks, or explain why there aren’t but a handful of such creatures left?

It can be hard to care for things you take for granted, or for people who live far away, or for animals that seem to have no effect on your life. I’m asking you not only to try to care a little, but also to be logical in the analysis of cost versus benefits. And don’t just think of your own small lifespan, but think of those who will come after you. How will your grandchildren feel knowing that their grandparents allowed for the loss of something so obviously practical, and so abstractly beautiful?

 

So what can you do? Is there anything you can do to help improve existing wetland protection? I am in the process of corresponding with a few wetland specialists who may be able to tell us how we can help. If you want to help, such as by sending letters (which I can provide a template for) or signing a petition, please contact me at 7mononoke@gmail.com, and I will keep you up to date on what can be done and what is being done. Thank you for reading.

“Mean Genes” Book Review: Why We Behave Badly

Written by Terry Burnham, “Mean Genes: From Sex to Money to Food, Taming Our Primal Instincts” is extremely informative on a variety of topics, and also incredibly easy to read. This makes it a great option for people that have trouble focusing and getting through books in general (such as myself). The style is fairly informal, and the authors refer to themselves several times with personal anecdotes. Mean Genes excellently achieves the task of putting recent scientific discoveries into layman’s terms.

Evolutionary Psychology

The main objective of this book is to explain humanity’s natural tendencies—mostly the ones widely considered immoral—using evolution. In my opinion, “Mean Genes” is a bit of a misnomer, since the book spends little time discussing any actual genes or genetic mechanisms. It does, however, discuss inheritance: the “bad habits” we inherited from our ancestors. So this really is a book about evolutionary psychology, the exciting new field that finally explains, without any superstition, the root of our social evils.

The book’s secondary objective is to offer small helpings of practical advice to tame these “bad habits.” However, coming from an author who is not a psychiatrist or doctor or counselor or social worker, these notes often come across as a little naïve and not of substantial value.

Why We Act Badly

Topics discussed in Mean Genes include why we overeat, why we love risk, why we love alcohol and drugs, why couples cheat on each other, and much more. For an example, the reason humans in first world countries overeat is that fat storage is a valuable survival mechanism, much like storing acorns is for squirrels. Early humans who did not possess our technology were more likely to survive in the harsh world—and thus reproduce—if they ate as much as they could. The ones with less appetite would obviously be thinner, maybe starve one bad winter, and not have children. Therefore, we are left in today’s greatly altered world with the genes that tell us to eat more, more, more.

That’s the basic premise of evolutionary psychology. It explains things using evolution. Another example would be couples sexually “cheating” on each other. All humans have an intense desire to mate. Think about it: early humans that had fewer children slowly died out, while humans that achieved more mating events obviously produced more offspring that lived on, passing down the genes that make sex seem so amazing to us.

In addition, humans are (subconsciously) interested in giving their offspring the best possible combination of genes (the best chance of survival); this is where partner choosiness comes in. This is why males are subconsciously compelled to spread their genes to a variety of women; if he finds a woman with good genes, he’ll want to mate with her. (This book also explains how attractiveness is related to gene differences—we find another person “sexy” when their immune genes are dissimilar from our own, thus giving our offspring double our immunity to diseases.) Women also cheat, but they cheat less often because they are choosier. This is evolutionarily appropriate, since women don’t get to just “spread their seeds” super easily like men—they’re the ones who must go through the process of pregnancy. Therefore, if only subconsciously, women are more interested in men with committed natures, while men are more interested in spreading their genes to a variety of different mates.

Controversy

This book understandably inspires some controversy. Many people “take issue” with the idea of human evolution, sometimes even those who recognize the accuracy of evolutionary theory in other species. Let’s be honest: this stuff can be difficult to face. Because we have evolved a conscience, it’s seems shameful to be descended from those early humanoids and humans who viciously fought, viscerally mated, and cared little for truth and equality compared to survival. Also, anyone with a bit of ego might find it somehow lowering to be descended from animals—this applies mostly to the religious creationists, who prefer to think that we were made perfect and in our current form by a supernatural being, no matter what science shows.

Moving past the shame piece is not too difficult. I didn’t take it nearly as hard as the discovery that I was descended from Crusaders and, more recently, a pro-slavery Confederate Civil War general! We can learn from the past; look how far we’ve come as a species already! The creationists’ reason to object to the ideas in Mean Genes may be a little harder to get over, but it’s not impossible. If you are a creationist, just read this book thinking only of humans of the past few thousand years. The lessons still pretty much hold; essentially the point is that our “bad habits” are ingrained in our physical bodies, passed down generation to generation since the Fall of Man. You might, in fact, invoke some Biblical support if you really wanted. For instance, in a recurring theme throughout Romans is that “sin” comes from “the flesh,” while the power to overcome those temptations must come from the spirit.

How to Get Better

Speaking of overcoming, as mentioned above, the book does indeed address the issue. For some reason, many evolution skeptics seem to think that acknowledging that our ancestors were brutish somehow means we are condoning their actions for today’s society. This is, of course, utterly bogus; I have yet to meet any scientist or science-advocate who says we’re suddenly allowed to rape because it happened in evolutionary history. Far from condoning any action, evolutionary psychology simply seeks to EXPLAIN WHY we have these selfish urges. Once we know WHY we feel a certain way, it’s actually much easier for us as people to fight the temptations.

Would you want to fight an unknown enemy? How about fighting wearing a blindfold? Do you want to keep white-knuckling it, just trying the same old approaches to resisting selfish habits over and over again to no avail? For those actively trying to curb some habit that impedes their life, ignorance is never bliss. That’s why Mean Genes is a great book whether you are a clergyman, a geneticist, a biologist, a psychiatrist, a counselor, or virtually anyone else.

Poisonous Religious Sex-Shaming

What if parents were told that having their teenagers kidnapped and used in human trafficking was their fault because they didn’t hide their children? What if banks were told that there were robbed because they had too much money stored in them? There is a name for this: it’s called blaming the victim.

It’s Not Bikinis’ Fault

I am so sick of the mentality in evangelical Christian culture of shaming girls for their bodies and sex. It isn’t bikinis or short shorts that make some men objectify women. People in Grandma dresses were once objectified too. If some men are douche-bags and objectify women, it’s on them to learn some goddamn self-control. What it’s not about is making women responsible for some men being idiots.

Dress How You Want

Women own their own bodies. They can wear what they want. Even as someone who personally prefers to wear loose, long clothing– (not because I’m trying to be “modest” but because I happen to find boys’ style clothing incredibly comfy) — I would never tell a woman not to wear a bikini. And yes, there is also a problem sometimes with young women feeling peer-pressured to get into clothes they aren’t comfortable with. That’s why I’m not specifically advocating any modern fashion. I’m saying girls, wear what makes you comfortable. If it’s an itsy bitsy bikini, go for it. If it’s a dress or a suit or a burlap sack, or it’s cargo pants and a fruit of the loom t-shirt, go for it. Don’t let the religious make you think you are to blame for inappropriate male behavior, and don’t be ashamed of your body.

It’s Ok to Check Her Out

Now I’m going to include a note that often isn’t included in this kind of discussion. When it comes to Christians, they consider a “lustful thought” as evil as “committing adultery.” I’m going to clear up this confusion. “Checking out” a woman is natural, biological, involuntary part of being a human male. Women check out men too. This has nothing to do with clothing style– both sexes will still subconsciously rate the other in their heads for sexual/genetic compatibility/competency. This is ingrained in our evolutionary history, and is not inherently bad. It only becomes harmful when men– or women sometimes– consciously begin thinking of the opposite gender as objects exclusively for sex, and begin thinking that they have a right to persist in seeking after someone even when she says no.

It’s Not Ok to Objectify

In short, checking someone out is NOT the same as mindful objectification. One is a natural biological phenomenon. The other is an attitude of blatant disregard for others, which we social animals condemn. Anyone can study and see that many strict religious cultures have a history of objectifying women. In many cases this is made worse by trying to completely deny one’s own natural sexuality. Many Christian men often beat themselves up (mentally) just because they realize they have given a woman a quick look-over. They try to stop themselves from engaging in this involuntary, genetic behavior, which leads to a frustration and sexual suppression, which can then lead to engaging in sexual acts “in the dark” where they can’t be seen and judged, and THIS is where things like rape, molestation, and perversion often come into play with evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.

Fundamentalist Denial of Sexuality

This kind of popular Christianity is good at denying sexuality. It says, “Men, you should be ashamed for even thinking about sex.” It says, “Women, you should hide your bodies, and blame yourself when men objectify you.” And of course, “Homosexuals, your very orientation is WRONG and disgusting before God.” Can’t we leave these inherently harmful mentalities behind? Let’s say, “Homosexuals, you are valuable fellow human beings whose sexual freedom is none of my concern.” Let’s say, “Women, dress in what makes you comfortable, and do not be ashamed of your body.” Let’s say, “Men, acknowledge your sexual desires without letting them override reason and consideration.”

Let’s listen to the voices of reason and actual good will toward others (unlike religion).

Self-Injury

I decided to post about self-injury since I have been unable to find more than one other decent blog or post on the subject so far. Most of the options were full of painfully annoying errors and text-speak, as well as incorrect information, unsupervised, often stupid comments, or an overload of hearts and flowers which chase away anyone who is not a female middleschooler. Therefore, I’m putting forth an intelligent, informed post about self-injury. Don’t fall for misconceptions about all cutters being attention-seeking teenage girls; become informed on a topic that is important in this day and age.

What is it? Self-harm is the act of willfully harming oneself not in the context of a cultural or religious ritual (such as piercings). It is thought that about one percent of the US population self-injures in some form. (http://www.teenhelp.com/teen-health/cutting-stats-treatment.html) Numbers of self-injurers continue to increase. One of the best known examples of self-injury is cutting the skin using a blade or sharp object. People can cut primarily to feel pain, to see blood, or bear scars. Other examples of self-injury include starvation, self-bruising, or self-burning with cigarettes, hot kitchen items, matches, or boiling water.

Why do people intentionally injure themselves? The answer depends entirely on the person. Some people cut because they feel emotionally empty and numb; cutting creates an adrenaline rush that alleviates feeling “dead inside.” Some people feel calm and relaxed after cutting, probably because cutting releases endorphins, like eating chocolate. You can self-injure to express pent-up feelings (anger, anxiety, depression) that are resistant to other forms of release. Self-injury is also viewed by some as a way to prove to themselves that they are tough. Some people cut  because of self-esteem issues, feeling that they need to be punished for stupidity, ugliness, etc. Others cut themselves in order to receive social attention, whether positive or negative.

Myths. There are many myths about self-injurers, and many ridiculous things that are commonly said to self-injurers. A common myth is that all cutters are young girls. This is not true. Males and females of all ages are known to exhibit self-injurious behavior. Harmful things that are often said to cutters include statements that the injuries are not serious and therefore no real problem exists, or that the cutter is “just looking for attention.” Telling a known cutter that his or her injuries are not so bad can make them hurt themselves worse, or can make them feel like you do not care about the underlying psychological problem they’re experiencing. As to the second, there ARE some cutters who simply want attention, but this does not apply to all; many cutters wish to hide what they view as a shameful secret. As for the cutters that do seek attention, it’s unfair to assume they’re being shallow or childish. Maybe the people around them are truly neglecting them, and this should be a call to you to reach out to them, not to write them off as silly.

Good Intentions. Self-injurers can also be harmed by people with good intentions. Spiritual people sometimes say, “Just ask God for help and He will heal you,” which is oversimplifying the issue, not to mention that it useless advice for the non-religious. Some well-meaning people may offer advice without being asked, which makes them seem overbearing and sometimes condescending to the cutters. Many people react to cutters with emotionally charged exclamations of “Don’t do it!” or “why do you do this?!” This can be extremely disconcerting to the cutter, especially if they are the types that DO NOT enjoy attention. Instead, people should try to respond to cutters calmly and not over-simplify the issue. If any readers know a self-injurer, either personally or through the web, please be aware that your comments can hurt even if you had good intentions.

What can you do? The most important thing you can do for a cutter friend or family member is to try to understand them and not judge. For instance, I self-injure, and I’m a lot happier opening up to people who understand where I’m coming from and don’t judge. Here’s an example of two different people reacting to my cutting.

1) A relative saw one of my scars and gasped, horror on her face. Her only other reactions were to question whether I was seeing my psychiatrist and demand that I do not self-injure at all if I am anywhere near her. My natural reactions were to feel defensive and embarrassed in response to her horror, and feel alienated and unwelcome/unwanted because of her request. The relative had good intentions but reacted poorly. As a result, I no longer felt safe talking to her.

2) A friend and I were discussing emotional problems, and because I felt very comfortable with him, I started confessing that I engage in self-harm. To my surprise, the friend actually smiled and said “Yeah yeah, I know you’re a cutter,” with apparently full understanding, no judgement, and no negative emotional reaction. He made me feel so comfortable that we talked for a long time about self-injury and other addictions. As a result, I remembered our talk every time I wanted to cut and was able to stop cutting for a period of a few weeks.

What can you do if YOU are a self-injurer? The most important thing you can do is seek support and community. Some people find that seeing a counselor helps. You can also try talking to your friends and family about it– if you feel safe opening up to them, that is. There are several forums online with sections for self-injury where you can anonymously vent and interact with other self-injurers. Some websites describe alternative ways to handle the urge to cut, such as holding ice cubes in your hands for a few minutes, which “shocks” the skin in much the same way as a cut.

Will I Ever Stop? Many cutters find that they can go several weeks, months, or even years without cutting before they relapse again. But is it possible to ever stop self-injuring entirely? The truth is, there’s not a lot of data available on the subject yet. However, as a firm believer in human strength, I think it’s a safe bet that some people actually do succeed in quitting. Still, a more realistic goal than total, permanent abstinence is to get to a place where the self-injury is well-managed and minor enough that you can function in society the way you desire.

I hope this post sheds some light on the issue of self-harm, and I hope it helps cutters and their friends and families alike.

On Psychiatry Today

(The DSM-V, The BRAIN Iniative, and Anti-Psych Views)

I mentioned in my last post that much of my blogging is likely to focus on psychiatry and the subject of mental and emotional problems. It’s a broad and vastly interesting topic, and directly relevant to people like me who struggle with mental/emotional issues. It’s my hope that these posts might be read by people recieving treatment in the “psych world” so they can find a blogger who is kindred spirit. I also hope that friends and family members of those who suffer mental/emotional problems will see these posts and hopefully become more educated.

The DSM

For those who don’t know, the bible of psychiatry and psychology is the DSM: Diagnostic Statisitic Manual of mental disorders. Ever since the first version’s publication in 1952, there have been several updated versions released. Each mental disorder has a number with which it can be quickly looked up in the DSM, which then lists the accepted standard criteria for the disorder.

Psychology has been in the news a lot more than normal recently because of the publication of the fifth version of the DSM. This publication has sparked an explosion of controversy mostly due to a) disputatious changes in the DSM, and b) the public’s frustration at the psych world as a whole for continuing to be such a fuzzy science. The latter will be discussed later, but for now let’s look at a few of the changes the new DSM created.

The New DSM

Young children that often get into temper tantrums can now be diagnosed with “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder,” and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder can be diagnosed in preschool children. Patients that were once told they were going through normal stages of grief can now be diagnosed with depression. Caffeine withdrawal is now listed as a disorder, and other newly listed abnormalities include hypersexual disorder, cannabis withdrawal, and hoarding disorder, among others.

So what is the overall theme of this new DSM? More, more, more. More disorders, diagnosed at younger and younger ages. It seems that almost NOBODY is normal. (For example, according to many studies– see http://www.caffeinedependence.org/caffeine_dependence.html for an example–about 90% of the US population uses caffeine. So if we were to all suddenly stop caffeine use and experience the resulting headaches and cognitive fog, we would all be considered mentally unwell.) Obviously, lots of people dislike the fact that what was considered normal before may no longer be treated as such. Many people also feel that children should not be diagnosed with anything since their brains are still developing. (This is already a controversy as people have long objected to treating ADHD in elementary school kids.) And I won’t even remark on the cannabis withdrawal except to say that it’s utterly bogus– unless they also want to add something equally meaningless such as Snickers withdrawal. In short, the DSM-V is so controversial that the National Institute of Mental Health has reportedly rejected it.

What you choose to think about the new DSM is of course up to you. To some peoples’ way of thinking, there really is no such thing as normal. Everyone could be diagnosed with something. However, in my personal opinion, these so-called disorders are worth diagnosing IF and ONLY IF they are interfering with your ability to function in society. If you quit caffeine, I don’t think there is any reason to start seeing a psychiatrist. Instead, take a few days off work, drink lots of water, and take a shitload of ibuprofen. I also disagree with the heavy medication of young children. All children have the right to develop their own brains instead of being subject to chemically induced crowd control. And when as teens or young adults they decide they are not functioning in society the way they desire, then they can seek medication.

An Uncertain Science

The other major issue that has people pissed off at the psych world is the fact that it’s still just a fuzzy, unsure science. Instead of being based on measurable physical data, the criteria for any disorder is simply a list of symptoms. Virtually nobody meets the exact criteria, and many people meet selected criteria for many disorders at once. It’s largely up to interpretation– you can go to one shrink and be diagnosed with Bipolar, and then go to another to be told you have ADHD and not Bipolar. However, it is completely unfair to blame psychiatrists for this scientific lack. Modern science lacks information about the brain and its many functions; we still lack consistent, safe ways to test peoples’ brains for levels of brain chemicals and hormones.  So don’t blame them for this: it isn’t anyone’s fault. We don’t understand the physical basis for psychology yet, but psychiatrists and neuroscientists are working hard to improve.

Don’t lose hope. Another object of attention in the news has been the BRAIN Initiative. A one hundred million dollar project called for by President Obama, the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies Initiative will seek to essentially map out the brain in ways never done before. It seeks to understand exactly what, where, and when the different parts and cells of the brain do. Despite much less funding, this project has been compared to the Human Genome Project in its scope and implications. See http://www.nih.gov/science/brain/index.htm for more info. And don’t give up just yet! 🙂

Anti-Psych Perspectives

As we can see, the psych world is vast and constantly evolving. Obviously, many people who genuinely couldn’t function satisfactorily in society have been helped by psychiatry. But there are many people who hold anti-psych views. It’s important to be prepared to run into these people and know how to respond. Below is a list of some reasons for anti-psych views that you might run into.

Anti-Psych Because It Just Doesn’t Work. This is fairly obvious. And I think a lot of us have been here: when nothing seems to be working in the slightest, even with counseling, medications, and some good friends. Fortunately, this is usually a phase and if you keep at it you may find something that helps, at least a little bit.

Anti-Psych Because Of Scientific Ignorance/Distrust. This is most common in religious people– for example, fundamentalists who believe that religion and faith in God is all you need to help or remove so-called psychological problems. These people may even refuse to believe that disorders exist. There are also loosely spiritual people, the “hippie” types, who believe a person is entirely the master of his own mind– that if you worked at it hard enough you would achieve peace, that there’s nothing wrong with you, and that you don’t need any pills or therapy. In fact, anyone who uses the “pure willpower” philosophy falls into this category. They just don’t understand that there are biological differences between the minds of people with stable brain chemistry and the minds of those with something like Major Depressive Disorder.

Anti-Psych and Identity Acceptance. Some people are anti-psych in the sense that, although they acknowledge disorders exist, they accept this as a part of who they are, NOT something to be remedied. I agree with them in that the term “disorder” is misleading because many diagnoses actually have benefits. For example, people with ADHD are usually excellent fighters and workers on emergency/crisis crews. Anxious people can point out problems that the careless might miss, and depressed people probably have a more accurate view of the world in many cases.

However, what some of these anti-psych people fail to realize is that there’s a point where these disorders truly hinder your ability to function in the real world. For example, you have such severe ADHD that you’ve driven away all your friends with your impulsive behaviors, or you’ve flunked all your college classes. Another example: if your depression goes untreated you may become suicidal. Or you may have Bipolar mania so badly that you behave recklessly and build up criminal charges and jail time. This is the reason I think that you SHOULD seek psychological help if you feel you are not functioning in society. (It’s fair to note that the above examples CAN still happen even under psychiatric supervision… but you have more help in place if it does.)

Conclusions

I think the best way to think of mental disorders is to take a little bit of everyone’s perspectives. Don’t be fooled into thinking that psych-help will always work wonders; be realistic and don’t give up after just trying three or four medicines or counselors. If you’re religious, then think of psychology as god’s tool to heal people and further his divine plans. Don’t say psych is anti-religious; can’t your god use all things, even the work of secular humans? Lastly, don’t view your disorder(s) as purely bad, because there are indeed some benefits. I still think the best thing to do is to seek psychological help, but to do it with these kinds of realistic thoughts in mind.

Readers, try to stay upbeat. Maybe anti-psych people have some valid points from which we can learn. And maybe some psychiatrists are just interested in crowd-control, and maybe the new DSM is dumb, but there are also things on the way like the BRAIN Initiative. Don’t give up, my friends. Stick around and keep an eye on the psych world.

I’m Back! Music and Mental Disorders

Well, it’s been a long time since my last post, but the weasel has returned! I’ll try to start blogging a little more regularly from now on. There’s a lot I’d like to post about, including the vast and difficult topic of mental “disorders” and emotional problems. This subject has been of some interest to me since I myself became immersed in the “psych world,” along with several of my close friends coming to terms with their  issues. And what better time to start talking about psychiatric issues than just after the publication of the new DSM?

There is Hope– and Music!

Today we’re staying short, sweet, and relatively simple. To all those who have a “mental disorder” or emotional issues, I just want to say you’re not alone. And there is hope. Despite how hopeless things may seem, new research is constantly underway to try to improve treatment and outlook for the victims of these disorders. We just have to keep funding science and neurology and keep open minds.

It’s easy to feel alone, but the fact is you are not. There are many ways to alleviate the feeling of being terminally unique. For me, one of the best ways is the use of music.

We all have favorite songs. I’ve found that many of my favorites often have to do with emotional and psychological problems, so I’ve decided to share a few in the hopes that when you listen to these, you’ll know that someone feels the same way that you do. Some of my top choices are listed below, as well my thoughts about them.

Depression and Anxiety

“Bent” by Matchbox 20 is one of my recent favorites. To me this song speaks of persistent depression and the fear that one will never recover from it. I also love the Vevo music video, in particular the part where the singer seems to be walking in slow motion against a strong wind while everybody else walks by at normal speed with no resistance. This is exactly what depression can feel like for some people. And being Matchbox 20’s work, the song is catchy as hell!

“Away from the Sun” by Three Doors Down describes Major Depressive Disorder better than any other song I’ve heard so far. In particular it points out the poisonous, negative, and cyclical pattern of depressive thinking with its lyrics. My favorite line is “I miss the colors of the world,” because as any person with diagnosed depression knows, it really does feel like the world has gone completely gray.

Dream Theater’s song “Panic Attack” perfectly illustrates what it is like to feel uncontrollable anxiety, while still sounding completely freakin’ awesome, because hey, it’s symphonic metal. On a more positive note, “Drive” by Incubus also seems to me to be about anxiety, but it’s about conquering that anxiety and learning to take the wheel of your own life.

Dissociation, Self Harm, and Bipolar

If anyone has a dissociative disorder or has experienced dissociative panic attacks, Nine Inch Nails’ song “Only” is priceless. It describes the feelings of fading away, losing all sense of self, as well as connection to others. As with many of their songs, it has a unique, industrial-metallic sound to it.

Another song by Nine Inch Nails, later covered by Johny Cash, has won renown among the sufferers of mental disorders as well as people with addiction issues. This beautiful and tragic song is called “Hurt,” and if you have ever self-injured or are a cutter, you will empathize with this song. I much prefer the Nine Inch Nails version since it is the original and it sounds much more dark and creepy than Johny Cash’s version. The best line is, “I focus on the pain: the only thing that’s real.”

(Note that the lead singer of Nine Inch Nails, Trent Reznor, was diagnosed with Bipolar Type II Disorder, as was Kurt Cobain of the band Nirvana. Both bands put out many songs that sufferers of Bipolar may appreciate.)

Sleep Disorders, Anger, and Abuse

Anyone with dream disorders such as sleep terrors, nightmare disorder, or sleepwalking disorder may sympathize with “Narcolepsy” by Third Eye Blind, “Killing me Inside” by Crossfade, and “Autoclave” by The Mountain Goats.

The last song, Autoclave, is also a good one for people with anger control issues, as the lyricist describes himself as beast-like, a “mass of blood and foam,” whose heart, like an autoclave, runs at super high pressures and temperatures. In addition, “Animal I have Become” and “Wake Up” are excellent songs having to do with anger (both by Three Days Grace). By far the best song for anger control issues is Chevelle’s “The Red.” Vevo’s music video for this one is priceless, especially if you have had to suffer through anger management classes.

A short list of songs for those who have suffered any kind of psychological abuse: “Respect is Due” by The Dismemberment Plan, “Because of You” by Kelly Clarkson, “Breakdown” by Seether, “Down with the Sickness” by Disturbed, “Let You Down” by Three Days Grace, and “For You” by Staind. (I apologize that I don’t have a list for physical abuse, but some of these songs apply to all forms of abuse.)

Hospitalizations

If anyone has ever been hospitalized over a mental or emotional disorder, and if you have a taste for unusual, off-the-radar types of music, you might just love “Tea and Thorazine” by Andrew Bird, the best line of which is the first: “I can tell by the way you take your infusion that you’ve spent some time in a mental institution.” Another good one that’s a little more abstract would be “Damn These Vampires” by The Mountain Goats. On the surface, the song seems to be about some cowboys plagued by vampires, but looking through the analogy we can see the song is a heartfelt message for anyone who feels plagued by doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, overbearing friends or family, or what have you— especially if you hate having blood drawn or being stuck with needles.

Top Two Songs

I love all of the above-listed songs, but to me, the top two songs about mental illness are most definitely “Emotion Sickness” by Silverchair and “Unwell” by Matchbox 20. Both songs can be about any disorder; they aren’t restricted to just bipolar or just to addicts. Emotion Sickness is a sad but beautiful musical masterpeice, worth every bit of the seven minutes. And “Unwell” is an upbeat, catchy, and almost ironic song quite popular on the radio a few years ago.

I have been listening to Unwell since I was a young teenager, long before I was diagnosed with anything. It deals with the social anxiety that comes from feeling mentally unwell, as others around you seem to judge or not understand you… “I can hear them whisper, and it makes me think there must be something wrong with me…” Which kind of brings us full circle, back to the feelings of being alone and terminally unique.  But the very fact that Unwell (and the other songs) exist means that somewhere, other people REALLY DO know how you feel. And it’s probably more people than you think. 🙂

Eternal Curiosity

Don’t Settle for Narrow Views

A friend of mine once said that, if there is a god, he is so far beyond the scope of what any person could ever begin to imagine that it is ridiculous to be sticklers for strict religions and rules. The longer I live, the more I think this view is correct. What can any measly human ever claim to know about god? This reminded me of a song I know by a Christian group that I normally don’t like very much. This one song of theirs I enjoyed primarily for the poetry, part of which goes,

“What do I know of you, who spoke me into motion? Where have I even stood but the shore along your ocean? Are you fire? Are you fury? Are you faithful? Are you beautiful? So what do I know? What do I know of Holy?”

The Eternal Curiosity

Humans have a hunger for a greater understanding. For some people the hunger is somewhat satisfied by faith, or philosophy, or science, or any mix thereof—but in any field, for every “answer” you find, a dozen more questions are dug up too. The quest and thirst are never-ending and eternal.

We are all of us captured in this destiny of seeking meaning to things we will never understand. We are like little children staring out of the bedroom windows at night staring at the stars and wishing we could understand how to trap them and hold them in our tiny soft hands like the way we hold fireflies—because all we know is relative to something else.

I am a child that sneaks out at night hunting for the fairies in the field, bare feet cold on the blue grass, asking “How do I reach the stars?” The stars are above me and I’m trying with all my heart to climb up to them. I am a wayfarer on the edge of the cliff overlooking the salty sea and asking the gray wind, “Where have I even stood but the shore along the ocean?” Not just “What do I know of Holy?” but “What do I know?”

Wanderlust of the Mind

We know what is real based on our senses and reason. But there lies in each of us a love of fantasy and magic. Sometimes it’s fun to think there might be Leprechauns in your shoes. And sometimes, though they can also be dangerous, irrational beliefs can help you get through hard times. Lots of people rely on their religious faith in times of crisis. I am not religious, but I love to let my mind wander sometimes.

We hold onto our little sparks and shadows. The things that we believe in. Our little bit of stolen faerie dust, our shard of glass that reflects another world within it.

There is another song I know that goes, “I am a magnet for all kinds of deeper wonderment. I am a wunderkind… destined to seek…destined to roam.” A destiny of wanderlust is ever before us.

Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man”: Insulting and Misunderstanding Science

C.S. Lewis is considered one of the major figures in Christian apologetics. In my household, he was all but idolized. I’ve always loved the way that Lewis writes, as I grew up reading the enchanting Chronicles of Narnia. However, this does not mean I admire all of his conclusions (as someone who does not support organized religion, I guess that to be expected.) Below is a critical response to Lewis’ book (really a collection of three lectures), The Abolition of Man.

Absolute Values

In this first chapter, Men Without Chests, there are two main points or themes I felt were most prominent. First, Lewis  stated his believe in “the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.” He rejects the “modern” opinion that value is subjective—in his example, a waterfall is sublime, instead of being an object that evokes different value responses in different people, none of which is innately right or wrong with regards to the waterfall.

The second theme is a call away from pure “hard rationality” teachings. Lewis criticizes schoolteachers in his day for teaching that all emotional inclinations are useless, or much less useful than practical utilitarian thinking. By comparison, Lewis believes the point of education is to encourage the “good” feelings, values and thoughts in children and to discourage the “bad” ones. Some emotional responses or interpretations are true or in line with the objective Truth of reality: the Tao as he calls it, in reference to an Oriental doctrine.

Subjective Values

I will say I love the way Lewis writes and the way he breaks things down. But the only point in this chapter on which we agree is that teachers discounting the emotionality and creativity of students is destructive. Yet it is also destructive to say that for every case and every object imaginable there is only one true value. In fact by teaching religiously based absolute values, you greatly restrict the emotional enhancement of people as well as their intellect. I know this from experience.

Here’s what Lewis doesn’t seem to understand about assigning objective values to objects, virtues, or phenomenon. The problem is, the act of believing that something is objectively true across the entirety of reality is itself subjective—it’s a belief, and all beliefs depend on the person and their own values and feelings. To say that you know the one true absolute objective value to something is still a judgment, and therefore still subjective. The spider is beautiful to you but horrible to your neighbor. This is not to say there are not clear rights and wrongs in a situation. But something can only be “right” and “true” given the situation.

But Lewis shows only a small interest in this broad debate (of objective value) as whole. His examples revolve around the more specific topic of teaching children social values. Lewis fears that if subjectivism has its way, somehow this will translate to the loss of all virtues that are valuable in society—such as not cheating at cards, in one simple example. He writes, “The head rules the belly through the chest—the seat….of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest-Magnanimity-Sentiment—these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal.” In other words, if we don’t train our feelings into absolute right and wrong, then we will soon lose the liaison between reason and emotion, resulting in chaos. We will become men without “chests,” a metaphor for balance.

Instinctual Ethics

In Part 2, The Way, Lewis narrows his sphere a bit. In the previous chapter he mentioned a specific value: namely, that self-sacrifice for your country is a good and noble thing. The author argues that a value like this cannot be explained by utilitarian hard logic and reason. Lews says that if the modernist is unable to attribute sentimental values to “reason,” then he will attribute them to instinct. For example, due to our evolution, we instinctively want our “tribe” to survive, so we feel sentimental about self-sacrifice in war. This could lead us into believing that instincts are the root of all values, says the author. This is called instinctual ethics and Lewis strongly opposes it.

“Telling us to obey Instinct,” the author wrote, “is like telling us to obey ‘people’. People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war.” I agree. This is why you should question your instincts before acting on them. You may find that after following one instinct you feel you have the done right thing. Yet just as many times, instincts can get you into major trouble. This does mean that there NO values that come from instinct—I believe that altruism is at least partly an evolutionary adaptation of social mammals.

This is where I part ways with Lewis, who says, “… Nor in any appeal to instinct can the Innovator find the basis for a system of values.” Here he is arguing that there are sentiments—for example sacrifice for country—that are not rooted in utilitarianism nor in instinct. These sentiments are instead instigated by some universal Tao and should be regarded “as things so obviously reasonable that they neither demand nor admit proof.”

Defining the Tao

Shortly thereafter, the author defines the Tao as that “which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality,” which is “not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained.” In other words, the Tao is the conscience, with which all men are naturally imbued.

At this point Lewis becomes harsh, attacking people who desire to take apart, analyze, and/or question the idea of conscience. “…To the corrupted man,” he says, “the man who stands outside the Tao, the very starting point of this science is invisible.” Furthermore, “An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy. If a man’s mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut.”

Lewis temporarily speaks from the point of view of someone outside the Tao (that is, daring to explore morality): “Why must our conquest of nature stop short, in stupid reverence, before this final and toughest bit of ‘nature’ which has hitherto been called the conscience of man?” This position is subsequently designated as “the rejection of the concept of value altogether.”

Fear of Science and Technology

In the previous chapter, Mr. Lewis said that questioning and understanding the conscience could be viewed as part of men conquering nature. In chapter 3, the Abolition of Man, he asks, “In what sense is Man the possessor of increasing power over Nature? …What we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.” In other words, people use nature– and technology– to rule over each other. Lewis believed that with each passing generation, we are limiting the power of our offspring and confining and controlling them more.

Insofar as technology goes, this is a common argument. In Infinite Nature, the author writes, “Techno-skeptics…argue that technology limits options by restricting our view to solutions enabled by the technology we’ve mastered. …If your only tool is a hammer, everything becomes a nail. Possible designs…are restricted to the hammer technology…” (Hull page 66).

Lewis also fears science on a more irrational level. For example, he fears that contraceptives will be used for selective breeding of humans. He is also skeptical of “technology” in social understanding— that is, psychology and evolutionary psychology. Prenatal conditioning and “propaganda” education, Lewis says, will result in having mastery over “human nature.” He is terribly afraid that the next step of the conquest of nature will be men of science (“the man-moulders of the new age”) controlling people. Modern educators, or “conditioners” as he calls them, are forcefully imbuing students with a certain way of thought. This way of thought is one that questions too much. The “conditioners” are not bad men, says Lewis; “they are not men at all.” Hence, what he fears happening is the abolition of man.

“Conditioners” and “Basilisks”

The conditioners are also entirely driven by their own wants, being men without chests. For “those who stand outside all judgments of value cannot have any ground for preferring one of their own impulses to another except the emotional strength of that impulse.” Lewis equates the questioning of values, and the knowledge that morality is not black and white, is the same as not living by any value judgments. Curiosity about human nature, and alternative understandings of it, equals destruction.

I believe we all possess, subjective to each of us, a set of values and a worldview that shifts and changes throughout life. Each of us has a Tao of our own understanding, influenced by many factors. Because we do not attack each other for having a different Tao, admitting that our own is not absolute, and because we research where our Tao came from and how it works, does not mean we are without conscience. Far better, in my opinion, to wrestle through the essence of one’s own conscience than to take the traditional or popular values without question. No progress is made this way.

But Lewis would have it his way. He wants a science that comes at no cost. He fears analytical thought. In his own words, “…analytical understanding must always be a basilisk which kills what it sees and only sees by killing. But if the scientists themselves cannot arrest this process before it reaches the common Reason and kills that too, then someone else must arrest it.” And so he writes these essays, to warn against the dangers of free thought.

Lewis ended the essay with a thought that has permeated all of his writings under the surface up to this point. He writes, “But you cannot go on `explaining away’ forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it.”

Misunderstandings

Lewis misunderstands as much as he dislikes scientists. He wrote, “In the same spirit, Bacon condemns those who value knowledge as an end in itself: this, for him, is to use as a mistress for pleasure what ought to be a spouse for fruit. The true object is to extend Man’s power to the performance of all things possible. He rejects magic because it does not work; but his goal is that of the magician,” to use knowledge and science to achieve goals. (By the way, Francis Bacon is considered by many to be the father of the scientific method.)

First of all, most scientists study things not only for the good of mankind but also because they derive personal pleasure from their studies. For real scientists, knowledge is both “a mistress for pleasure” and a “spouse to bear fruit.” Lewis also needs to recognize differences in personality–many people think extremely analytically while others, like Lewis (and probably myself), tend to be more romantic. Neither is more correct– people are just different.

Second, just because scientists want to explain things does not mean we love them or are awed by them any less. We adore nature all the more for understanding it. If Lewis understood real scientists, he would know this. Of course we will never understand everything. And of course science can be abused, but so can anything. Science and ethics need to have a constant dialogue–for example, let’s try to continue research but with minimal pain caused to animal test subjects.

Lewis also does not understand education. He views modern education in an almost conspiracy-theory way. Being too utilitarian in the classroom, or accidentally making natural phenomenon like evolution carry over to something like social Darwinism, can be harmful, but the reasonable child will see where these things are inappropriate. Furthermore, teachers vary widely in what values they accidentally or purposefully imbue to students–there is no uniform mind among all teachers to “condition” children toward anything other than critical thinking skills, and even at that, many teachers fail.) I was strongly indoctrinated from birth to about age seventeen that both science and open-mindedness are very dangerous and could lead to separation from community and/or God. It never stopped me—I was always asking “why?” and now here I am a University studying science and seeking friends in all walks of life.

The Problem

The problem with this book is a simple disconnect between different types of people, and between an older culture resisting the transition into the next (which is common, and should not be harshly judged). Here we have one generation who was taught one thing, (black and white morality for example), fearing that their children will be now value-less because they are not being raised within the same social or cultural mindset. Here we have an eternal romantic who believes that wonder and love are destroyed by analytical understanding, crying out against the “intrusion” of science into all aspects of life.

This common personality disconnect has been discussed and documented by many people. One of my favorite writers on the subject is Robert Pirsig, who divided people into classic mode (analytical, seeking understanding of the underlying form), and romantic (seeking outward beauty). “To a romantic,” says Pirsig, “this classic mode often appears dull, awkward and ugly…. Everything is in terms of pieces and parts and components and relationships….  Oppressive. Heavy. Endlessly grey. The death force. Within the classic mode, however, the romantic has some appearances of his own. Frivolous, irrational, erratic, untrustworthy, interested primarily in pleasure-seeking. Shallow. Of no substance.”

Hopelessly romantic Lewis thinks that giving something scientific explanation makes it less wonderful. Sacrifice for our community can NOT be an evolution-imbued instinct, he snarls. And he growls, “…To call children delightful or old men venerable is not simply to record a psychological fact about our own parental or filial emotions at the moment…” as if psychology is somehow inferior or worthless. It is a pitiable condition—I really do feel for Lewis. It’s incredibly challenging to be open-minded and step out of your comfort zone.

I empathize with Lewis’ desperate feelings—but what I can’t tolerate is the expression of those difficult feelings by denying the humanity of those on the other side of the disconnect. The whole premise of his essay is people are not “real” people if they do not believe in objective values, question the conscience, question the springs of humanity, think analytically, or seek knowledge with the goal of directing it to modern use. Instead, those “people” are called men without chests, corrupted and damned—we are basilisks, killing everything we look at. This kind of lashing-out, even from someone who is obviously frightened by a rapidly changing world, is simply childish. “If a man’s mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut,” is a well-articulated way of saying, “If you don’t agree, shut up.” No, there is no abolition of humanity going on—but perhaps there is an abolition of adulthood as the author covers his ears, stomps into the nursery, and slams the door so as not to hear the world around him.

1.Hull, B.R. Inifite Nature. 2001 University of Chicago Press. Print.

2.Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. 1943. Columbia University 2002. Web.

(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm)

3. Prisig, R.M. 1984. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Publishing info unknown

(http://design.caltech.edu/Misc/pirsig.html)

Wildlife Science and Beyond– Utilitarian or Protectionist Orientation?

Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management

I very much like the word “interface.” Loosely defined, it refers to a point where two or more systems or objects meet and interact. It does not follow that they must interact well with each other, only that they must indeed interact. It is always at interfaces that the most interesting things seem to occur. The interface earth’s different systems, as in the hydraulic and weather cycles wearing away at the crust to create sediment and thereby contribute to the rock cycle, the interface of science and religion, the interface of delicious flavors—coffee and fresh cream, African Rooibos with bits of dried damson. One interface of particular importance to my field (wildlife science) is the interface of social sciences with wildlife management. This is known as the field of “human dimensions.”

For some unknown reason, very unlike the rest of my family, I was born with a high affinity for people. Or at least, with an affinity for studying them and endeavoring to understand who they are and how they think. Not everyone knows this because of my general reserve in social situations, but it’s true just the same. Given this, it would seem that human dimensions should appeal to me greatly. It will probably not end up shaping the direction of my career, however, because I am so passionate about certain things that I would be almost certain to end negotiations in much the same way as did Aragorn with the Mouth of Sauron. My first encounter with a hardheaded wolf hunter may his last encounter, period. Nevertheless, the human dimensions class in which I am currently enrolled appeals to my interests and I’m sure I will continue to enjoy it.

The class material is already making my brain work hard wrestling with tough questions—that’s why I’m writing this little piece here. Human dimension as a course is concerned with helping students understand and negotiate with the interests of stakeholders that possess many different value systems—but the course also points to much broader issues and questions, fascinating on a philosophical level as well other level. One issue is that of human value systems.

Values  Studies

A scientist by the name of Kellert was one of the first to design studies related to the fact that all humans have individual ways of relating to nature. Most people have a mix of many values, and these were classified by Kellert into nine categories including utilitarian, scientific, aesthetic, humanistic, and moralistic. Later, researchers from the University of Colorado also noted the importance of differing wildlife values and began a study to measure why and how values have shifted in the United States. Originally, the study was done in only six western states, but later more surveys were conducted to sample the views of the citizens of all western states. In this broader study, people were classified into utilitarians, mutualists (those interested in wildlife welfare and sometimes animal rights), plurals (who scored strongly on both of the previous scales), and distants (those who don’t give a damn).

It was found that people with utilitarian values were on average less educated, lived in rural areas, made less money, and had greater residential stability than those who were more mutualistic in their views. What are the implications of this? First of all, it’s a recipe for conflict between two polar opposite groups—one that views animals as things to be used, albeit used in a wise and sustainable manner, and the other viewing animals as needing constant protection, perhaps even arguing that they deserve the same right to life as humans. Another implication of the study is that with increasing urbanization, which is happening every day, there will be an increase in mutualists, or believers in animal welfare and/or rights.

Accusations From Both Sides

Let us delve into the slightly more hazy personal implications—almost inevitably, anyone who receives the results of this study will be drawn to defend their values as the correct ones. Is there a correct value system?

Look at what either side will say to the other. The moralists and humanists will shout, “You’re just stupid, greedy rednecks with no education.” The utilitarians will counter, “You’re all rich and live in the city, having no concept of real wildlife.”

Consider two situations in which one side of the issue would, theoretically, be more “correct.” The world suddenly goes to hell. Large scale governments break down. There’s widespread war, nuclear chaos maybe. In such a case, the urban folks, the ones who just wanted to snuggle their cats, and the “web-of-life-ists” busy with their third college degrees, would not last as long as the hunters, trappers, or anyone who could slay their fellow creatures without difficulty. Utilitarians win, at least until things stabilize and people start to have time to develop complex views and wrestle with moral dilemmas. (Note Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—we must have our physiological and safety needs met long before we can begin to think about our place in the world or self-actualization.)

But supposing nothing like that happens, at least not on such a large or debilitating scale. Suppose the earth is on a trajectory of a more inclusive, moralistic, ecologistic, more “enlightened” future?  Some have argued that this is part of human evolution. It is certainly part of societal evolution. Many people believe that humanity has been moving in the mutualist direction since our earliest documented history. It’s a slow rise, thanks to cliff-edge drop-offs like the Dark Ages or the fall of very civilized empires, but the graph has still shifted upward. As this continues, the utilitarians would “die out” as society moved farther away from their “primitive” mindset. If utilitarians see the moralist, mutualist and ecologistic believers as weak and wimpy, the latter categories view utilitarians as slow and stupid for not keeping up with human evolution.

Maslow’s Hierarchy

Well, this hasn’t really gotten us anywhere. Interesting speculation, but no answers. I myself now lean toward the pluralists, although at heart I am uber-mutualist. I realize that lofty and sentimental values are largely impractical and useless in this survival-of-the-fittest world (be that world the corporate workplace or the bear hunter’s game lands). But the other half of me is a deeply emotionally-driven creature. To be honest, Maslow’s hierarchy never made sense to me, and this is why the issue is so deliciously interesting. Here’s what I mean.

Physiological needs come before emotional ones, says Maslow. This is incredibly simplistic and something I’ve never been able to apply to my own life. When troubled or depressed, I stop feeding and taking care of my physical body. I don’t care if I am starving or injured because the issue bothering me has not been resolved. I’ve gone days without eating, entering the later stages of starvation mode where you zone out every few minutes, collapse frequently with too much exertion, and get a massively upset digestive tract. To me, physical needs take second place to deeper spiritual and emotional needs. Similarly, I consider the integrity of my morality more important than the length of my life.

For people like this, the question changes completely. Suddenly it’s no longer a question of “who wins?” but of “what is winning?” What is survival, and must it always be physical survival that we strive for?  To the true mutualist, I propose, the success of life is not how much money, land, resources, mates, or offspring they have, nor how long they live, but how well they have preserved their personal honor. To the utilitarian, Maslow’s hierarchy applies—it’s unchangeably in their nature to think more of their own physical needs than to consider deep moral/psychological/emotional issues, be they about wildlife or anything else.

Is Mutualism Adaptive?

It would seem that the utilitarian group is right in saying that the former’s mindset is not adaptive. But is this the case in reality? Long before current civilization with all our technology and distance networking, we still had people who cared more about self-actualization than physiology and safety. This is often demonstrated by altruism. For a historical example, take the famous Jesus—he rebelled against the culture around him by speaking to women, poor people, and sick people as equals, he intentionally starved himself in the wilderness to reach spiritual satisfaction, and all his antics eventually led to him being killed. Records do not indicate that he resisted—if dying was the price for his beliefs, he did not care. (Regardless of what is believed about his “divinity” or “miracles,” history at least agrees with what is mentioned above.) Is this too recent in evolution? Alright, forget humans then. There are many altruistic animals in nature that we can look at.

Vampire bats. Sometimes bats will pass up the opportunity of safety and physical advantage in order to help another bat who was unable to forage that night. The helper bat regurgitates the blood he collected, feeding it to less capable member of society. Studies also showed that an altruistic bat was more likely to have the favor returned to him in the future. Whether or not the bat knows this, and whether he only acts with the promise of physical reimbursement later, is speculative. But regardless, altruism becomes an adaptation, because bats who behave altruistically and have the favor returned to them by friends end up surviving in hard times.

Who is “Right”?

But let’s get away from the debates centering on altruism and go back to where we started. Which mindset is right? Is anyone really right? “Which is best for wildlife management” would be a better question. Well, that depends on your personal objectives as a manager of wildlife. If your goal is, at the heart of everything, to make sure nature stays stable enough to be used forever, you are right to be utilitarian. And you will help a lot of people. If your heart clings to fulfilling some personal sense of honor or duty by protecting nature to the best of your ability, with the least amount of death and suffering, you are right to incline to ecologistic, moralistic, and humanistic scales. Both sides must strive for balance and evaluate management decisions on a situation-by-situation basis.

This tends to be my answer to every question of morality—“give me the situational details” or “It depends.” This is, to go back to my opening, yet another interface of great interest. It is the interface of worldview with how nature and all its creatures, human and nonhuman, should be managed.

For information please see,

Kellert, S. R. 1996. Values. Pages 9-34 in S. R. Kellert. The Value of Life. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, and A. D. Bright. 2003. Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8(4): 287-306.

Wilkinson, G. S. 1990. Food sharing in vampire bats. Scientific American: 76-82.

(Unable to find Volume and Issue info for the Wilkinson article.)

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com! This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!