Slut Shamers Need To Get A Life

Slut shaming is the principle way that modern society represses self-expression in girls and women.  If a female doesn't conform to a conservative line on behavior and appearance in public, she is labeled a slut, which translates to brazenly oversexed and immoral.   

First of all, who gets to decide what constitutes being oversexed and immoral?  Conformity is a cultural construct that has been used for centuries to repress women.  It began eleven thousand or so years ago, when humans traded the stone-age, hunter-gatherer nomadic way for living in permanent communities dependent on agriculture for survival.  The move to settlements also gave rapid rise to a male aggression/dominance paradigm that has shaped human societies ever since.  

Women have been subjugated and treated as little more than vessels for child bearing ever since.  Women who dared step out of the very dark shadow looming over them were given a scarlet label, or even worse, brutally made into fearsome example by being burned alive at the stake.

In modern, developed societies women have shaken off most of the limits that prevented them from achieving their full potential in earlier times.  These days, women's voices are loud and clear. They have demanded equal treatment and, for the most part, they are getting it. Some battles, like equal pay for equal work and reproductive choice, are still being waged, so the fight continues.

One area where younger people, and young females in particular, remain in conflict with older people is in how they express themselves by appearance and personal behavior. Female sexuality is a powerful force that has been almost entirely repressed since the invention of the wheel.  Not anymore. We live now in an era awash in sexual expression.  Forty percent of the traffic on the internet is sexual in nature, much of it extremely so.

Young girls born into the age of the internet and cellphones are now getting peer pressure to engage in 'sexting', where the private exchange of sexually provocative images is the norm. This is a broad form of sexual expression that is far beyond anything seen in previous eras. 

Religious conservatives and traditionalists are apoplectic about the rise of female power and sexual expression.  They lament the passing of the female modesty that was once the norm, and they are quick to apply the 'slut' label to any girl who choses to express herself overtly, by what she wears and how she behaves.

Here's a bit of information I'd like to share with anyone who dares condemn another person, because they function outside of a cultural straightjacket.  We humans are hardwired to be interested in sex. It is how we are made. The brain sends us strong bio-chemical signals in response to sexual stimuli. That's what nature intended. 

That's not to say that freedom includes license to behave any way one likes. Some judgment is required. But it's not young people who are open in their sexual expression that need to change so much as it is older people, who are quick to apply ugly labels.

Bottom line. Being sexual is normal for men and for women.  Every person, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, has a right to own their sexuality, and express it as they wish, without fear of attracting a 'scarlet' label.

There's been a lot of hoopla lately about the privately taken and shared nude photos of celebrities being stolen by internet hackers, who then put those images out on the net for public consumption.  Who deserves to be castigated? Should it be a celebrity, whose privacy has been violated, or the internet trolls who stole the images and 'exposed' them without permission?   The answer seems clear enough to me.

Through the ages,  sex workers have been the subject of ridicule and scorn.  Many of them choose to express themselves through that career choice.  Should they be condemned for doing so?  Or should they be accepted for who they are, within a framework of  public policy that regulates their work to protect them from exploitation and violence, with law enforcement focused on stopping the  exploitation of adults, and particularly children, who are forced into sexual servitude?  The answer to this also seems clear to me. Europe, to a large extent, is already taking this tolerant approach. 

I love women who are comfortable expressing their sexual power. As a man, I believe it's entirely normal to think that  way.  That doesn't mean that men should behave like alley cats when they see an attractive woman walking down the street.   It's okay to appreciate a woman, without ceding complete control to one's limbic brain.

I've wanted to express myself on this issue for some time.  Just today, I ran across a video produced by Hannah Whitton, a  young  girl from London in the U.K., who does a lovely job of putting slut shamers in their place.

Here is a link to Hannah Whitton's  wonderful video repudiating the social phenomenon known as slut shaming...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3bQLq9QGA4

Ebola - Nature's Response to Human Overshoot?

Years ago, I read a couple of books about Gaia, by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis. The Gaia concept is that the Earth is a self-regulating, living organism, in and of itself.  Check out the Wikipedia link for an understanding of the Gaia hypothesis. 

This biological theory suggests that the Earth can and does respond to large scale biological opportunity and large scale biological stress with natural forces that can themselves be massive in scale.

Ebola is a  highly infectious viral disease that has no cure. It kills up to 90% of victims by massive hemorrhaging and loss of bodily fluids.  Ebola, so far,  has been confined to the African continent. Treatment puts medical workers at very high risk.  It's hard to imagine a more horrible way to die. There have only been a couple of serious outbreaks of Ebola over the years.  The worst ever is happening right now in the West African countries of Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia, and Nigeria. Nearly 800 have perished horribly from Ebola, and the outbreak is far from contained.

Ebola Patient Being Treated

Right now, contracting Ebola requires that one come in contact with contaminated bodily fluids from an Ebola patient.  The pathogen is difficult and very expensive to contain, very dangerous for medical workers to treat, and once a victim dies, just disposing of the corpse safely is a vexing problem.

On top of that, you add the cultural distrust of western medicine in African communities,  Ebola becomes even more of a challenge to contain. 

Because Ebola is a virus, it is constantly mutating into new forms. There is no vaccine that can make a person immune to Ebola.  The medical people on the front lines are some of the most courageous people one could ever imagine.  They go into it  knowing that if they are infected by the Ebola virus, they are very likely going to suffer terribly and lose their lives.

Ebola Virus

Could Ebola become a pandemic? Could it get loose and, like the plague did to 14th century Europe, could it wipe out a very high portion of  humanity?  The answer is yes. It could happen, particularly if it mutates into and becomes infectious in an airborne form.  If that were to happen, a person infected with Ebola but not yet symptomatic could get on a commercial flight and infect many of the other passengers, and those newly infected passengers could get on other airline flights to other places and potentially spread Ebola to the most highly populated areas of the Earth in a matter of a few days. 

The fact is, just a few days ago, a man infected with Ebola did get  on a flight from Liberia. He carried the disease with him to Lagos, the capitol of Nigeria. Every person he came into contact with from boarding of the flight in Liberia, to everyone in the airport and other places in Nigeria where he travelled is now being monitored.  So, the story of the current, largest ever Ebola outbreak, is still unfolding.

I very much hope they can contain the current Ebola outbreak, and minimize the suffering and loss of life. If things work out that way, and the outbreak is put down, that is hardly the end of the story.

As time goes on, as the population density in Africa rapidly expands,  the possibility of new Ebola outbreaks is very real.

Disaster fatigue is a  consequence of too many deadly dangerous events piling on in short succession. We are seeing that happening right now. We're seeing bigger, more powerful tropical storms, floods, droughts, wildfires, mega-tornados, and other natural disasters than ever before. High human population density translates into huge costs for cleanup and recovery. In economically disadvantaged countries, the financial resources available to deal with any kind of human disaster are limited. Moreover, given the increasing number of disasters around the world, the rich nations find themselves less and less able to respond with the resources and financial support each disaster demands, especially when they happen in distant lands. Haiti is not a distant land. It's a couple hundred miles distant from our shores.  The recovery from the massive earthquake disaster that devastated Haiti in 2010 has been woefully inadequate. The people of Haiti have  largely been abandoned by the rest of the world.

So, where does that leave humanity as population growth and massive, global scale problems like climate change  create the conditions for more and more mega-disasters and economic disruption?

Imagine twenty years from now, when the human population has expanded from 7.2 billion as it is now to something like 9 billion. Imagine the impact of climate change an order or two in magnitude worse than it is  now. Imagine, in those increasingly vulnerable conditions, that Ebola breaks out again in a mutated form that can be spread through the air, like a common cold virus.

Ebola is a nightmare of the very worst kind.  Could it end up being tantamount to  Gaia's way of relieving the extreme, broadly realized stress we humans have put on the planet's natural systems? Could Ebola ultimately become what the plague was to 14th century Europeans?   It's an ugly scenario, but unfortunately, it is a genuine possibility.

If we humans don't do something to relieve the extreme pressure we are putting on our resources and our biological systems, nature may well inflict it's own terrible, global scale stress reliever in the form of something like an airborne strain of Ebola.  If that happens, we will only have ourselves to blame. 

If Lovelock and Margulis are right about Gaia, the Earth biosphere will survive, even if humanity is brought to its knees in the process. It's a circumstance I would not wish on my worst enemy.  For the sake of future generations, I hope we wake up and make things right on planet Earth, before it's too late.

Save the Planet - Eat Less or No Meat

According to one estimate, humans kill and eat one hundred fifty billion animals every year.   Farmed livestock, animals like chickens, cattle, hogs,  have been reduced from living creatures to industrial commodities. With rare exceptions, these living creatures are propagated, raised, and ultimately slaughtered with only one thing in mind; minimize costs, maximize profit, the suffering of the animals be damned.

The public indifference to this brutal brand of industrial efficiency diminishes us all. Too often, compassion only extends to other humans, and that is only some of the time.  For too many people, a slab of meat is just something for sale in a supermarket.  Like I said, that attitude diminishes us all.

The article below is from the Huffington Post. It offers the conclusions of a study that puts sobering perspective on the cost of our heavily meat dependent eating habits. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture  organization, about 18 percent of all greenhouse gases contributing to climate change come from the billions of large animals raised industrially for human consumption.  That's nearly a fifth of the total. 

A conclusion that's easy to draw is that eating less meat will reduce the production of greenhouse gases. It's a simple step that every thoughtful person can take.  Not only is  reducing meat consumption good for one's health, it's also a very good thing for the planet. 

Eat less meat. Without question, it is an act of compassion Good for your health, good for the planet, good for your soul. 

_________________________

A new study on the environmental burdens of beef, pork, chicken, eggs, dairy and plant products finds that beef is by far the worst offender.

According to the study, published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a prominent scientific journal, beef production releases five times the amount of greenhouse gas emissions as the average of other meats and animal products. Nor is that all: Beef requires 28 times more land, 11 times more water, and six times as much reactive nitrogen as the average of the other categories, according to the study.

To calculate the impact of different animal products, the study's authors looked at the environmental effects of producing feed for animals, taking into account land use, water consumption and the potential for nitrogen pollution from fertilizers. (When excess nitrogen leaches into a body of water, it can cause algal blooms that deplete local levels of oxygen and cause harm to other marine organisms.) The researchers also calculated the amount of greenhouse gas given off by the animals themselves, including methane from manure. Ultimately, for each meat or animal product, the researchers were able to determine the amount of resources used to produce one calorie of that product.

When asked about the easiest and most effective way to make one's diet more sustainable, Gidon Eshel, a research professor at the Bard Center for Environmental Policy and the study's lead author, told The Huffington Post: "Really, there's no question about it. Reduce beef whenever possible."
Past research has shown that meat production contributes to global warming at a much higher rate than the cultivation of grains and vegetables. A recent study in the U.K. analyzed the diets of 55,000 people and found that the meat-eaters had twice the carbon footprint of the vegans. But if you're not ready to give up meat entirely, Eshel's study shows that you can have a big impact by just forgoing beef.

The no-beef lifestyle has its high-profile proponents. Earlier this month, business mogul Richard Branson wrote a blog post about his decision to cut beef out of his diet, noting that it was surprisingly easy to accomplish and has made him feel healthier. "I never feel like I'm missing out on anything," Branson wrote.

Eshel told HuffPost that despite a wealth of research into the benefits of a plant-based diet, "people seem unfazed by that in their consumption." Actually, though, meat consumption, and beef consumption in particular, have been on the decline in the United States in recent years. The USDA is projecting that this year, consumption of beef will be the lowest per capita since the 1950s. Whether that's because of rising meat costs, health considerations or growing pro-environment sentiment is difficult to say.

Eshel told HuffPost that maintaining an environmentally friendly diet is harder than marketers often make it seem.

"I really appreciate the good intentions of many individuals who strive in their personal choices to lessen their environmental impact," he said. "I would just caution ... against adhering to canned solutions that are purported to make matters better with little or no evidence that they in fact do."
Just because the meat in your meal is "grass-fed" or "local" doesn't necessarily mean it's good for the planet, said Eshel. More important are details like: Where was the animal raised? What was the climate of that area? What were the specific farming methods used? Someimes, Esehl said, "grass-feeding" can be even worse for the environment than the traditional corn-fed approach.
If the idea of swearing off meat turns your stomach, you can try the "vegan till 6" plan favored by New York Times food writer Mark Bittman. Or you can experiment with the popular Meatless Mondays. One thing's for sure: With animal agriculture responsible for about one-fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, there's a lot of room for improvement.

The Inner Life of a Cell

Just discovered a fascinating six minute 3D animation of the complex activity that goes on in each cell in the countless number of living cells that make up our bodies. No matter how intelligent or stupid we are as individuals, this is the stuff we are made of.... Amazing really...

Here is the link to this remarkable video...http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wJyUtbn0O5Y

Here is a TED presentation by a medical illustrator, explaining what's going on inside a cell..http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bolinsky_animates_a_cell.html

Africa, Women, and FGC - My Evolution of Understanding

A few years ago,  I began working on a novel titled, Virtue.  At the center of the story is a hardcore conservative media magnate. Imagine a younger version of Rupert Murdoch.  Anyway, this guy experiences a life threatening health scare that causes him to do much soul searching.  During his recovery, he meets a young woman who has focused her life on elevating women in the world's poorest places. The guy is oil, the woman is water. They don't mix well, but the passion is definitely there.

The media magnate's name is Greg.  The young woman he becomes enamored with, Daria, directs her outreach efforts in two places; Haiti and Ethiopia.  Her primary focus is on developing and implementing a  program called Bright Eve, built on interactive learning modules in the languages spoken by the local people.   One of the places Daria choses to test Bright Eve is a slum settlement called Mabwe  on the edge of Ethiopia's capital city, Addis Ababa.

 When I was developing  Daria's connection with this Ethiopian slum,  I was doing research on life in these poorest of poor places in Africa.  I discovered a cultural practice that girls anywhere from age three to ten have endured for perhaps a thousand years or more.  In this practice that I first came to know as female genital mutilation (FGM),  a girl child is subjected to the ritualistic removal of her clitoris and the labia surrounding her vaginal opening.  It is thought necessary to assure the purity of the girl for marriage as she grows older.  Needless to say, it is a shocking practice, painful to the extreme, and often accompanied by a whole range of serious health problems that can last a lifetime. In these cultures, girl children are treated as property, deemed unworthy of education, good only for house keeping and child bearing.

I have long believed that solving the colossal civilization scale problems that we face, like climate change and mindless population growth, first requires a leveling of the playing field, with equality and dignity for all becoming the norm. A crucial part of this is the empowerment of women.

In Virtue, Daria's focus is on elevating women in the world's poorest places.   When I learned about FGM, I sensed that it was something Daria would want to confront as well. Long story short, I was able to integrate an FGM subplot into Virtue.  After finishing the 100,000 word manuscript for Virtue,  I sought out editorial feedback, and over a number of revisions, I was able to make the story work nicely.

While working on revisions for Virtue,  I read a book titled, Half the Sky by Nicolas Kristoff and Sheryl Wu Dunn.  That book was a compendium of true stories of heroic women around the world pushing back against oppression, exploitation, and gender violence.  One of the stories in Half the Sky was about a women named Molly Melching,  who had created a non-profit organization called Tostan in Senegal in West Africa.  Tostan is a word that means breakthrough in  wolof, the most widely spoken native language in Senegal.  It's an apt description of Molly Melching's work.  Other efforts had been made to encourage the end of FGM.  Tostan evolved a model that delivered unprecedented success in educating and encouraging the repudiation of the culturally entrenched practice of FGM.

So, when I read the story of Tostan in Half the Sky, I knew what the next step for me needed to be.  I had to reach out to Tostan. I wanted my work to serve their noble efforts to affect change on the FGM issue in Africa, where it is actually happening everyday to young girls across the continent. 

Near the end of 2012, I made contact with Gannon Gillespie, Director of Tostan's office in Washington, D.C.  Gannon was pleased that I had written a work of fiction that included a plot element on female genital cutting.   He  agreed to read the Virtue manuscript, and he also arranged for Julia Lalla-Maharajh, founder of The Orchid Project, another global non-profit focused on the issue of genital cutting in Africa to read it

The feedback they gave me reflected disappointment because the way I presented female genital cutting in Virtue was not accurate.  Because it was not the main plotline of the story,  there's no denying, I didn't spend as much time trying to understand FGM as I should have.  Fortunately, Julia and Gannon  supplied notes, and I was able to make needed adjustments in the story  I didn't want Daria to be a hero like Molly Melching. At least not on the FGM issue. I wanted Daria to be deeply unsettled by FGM on an emotional level. I wanted her to respond emotionally to it initially, but pull back in time to a more measured and pragmatic posture. Most important, I wanted the depiction of FGM to be a useful reflection of the reality.

The first thing I learned from Gannon and Julia is that the term female genital mutilation has largely been replaced by female genital cutting (FGC), as a way of properly addressing the cultural sensitivity of the subject.

In April of 2013, a new book was published about Molly Melching and Tostan, the title of which is However Long the Night.  I wrote about this book in the blog entry that immediately precedes this one.

For me, this new book, authored by Aimee Molloy,  was a revelation  It helped me to understand and appreciate the way Tostan and also the Orchid Project are encouraging the end of FGC.  Working at the village level, Tostan facilitators, all of whom are local people themselves,  teach women that they have basic human rights; that they are entitled to dignity and proper treatment under the law. They teach lessons on reproduction, and the health effects of  FGC.  It's the patient, non-judgmental encouragement of community buy in, along with women, for the first time, understanding that they have rights, that makes Tostan's model for positive change work so well.

Most of the people in Senegal are Muslim. Tostan recruited local Imams to assure their followers there is nothing in the Koran that calls for women to endure genital cutting. Tostan and the Orchid Project encourage communities to come together as a whole to  abandon the practice of cutting, because it is the right thing to do for the health and welfare of their girl children. As of April, 2013 in Senegal alone,  5,423 communities have pledged an end to FGC.  This is a remarkable achievement, but there is still much work to be done.

The informal association I now have with Tostan and The Orchid Project assures that the subplot involving FGC in my novel Virtue will present the issue in the best way possible to serve the interests of their work.   I have also made a commitment to them that a substantial share of whatever I earn from the book and movie rights to Virtue will go to Tostan and The Orchid Project.  For me personally, I can't 'imagine anything more gratifying than to support these selflessly dedicated people with their efforts to empower women in Africa.

Here is a link to Tostan  http://www.tostan.org/

Here is a link to the Orchid Project  http://orchidproject.org/


 .

However Long The Night

I just finished reading a marvelous non-fiction book, beautifully written by Aimee Molloy.  However Long the Night is the story of Molly Melching and the extraordinary work she and her non-profit educational outreach organization, Tostan, have been doing, mostly in Senegal in West Africa.

Molly Melching in Senegal

Tostan is a word in Wolof, the most widely spoken of several languages particular to Senegal. It means 'breakthrough'.  That is exactly what Molly Melching and Tostan have facilitated in villages throughout Senegal, and in several other African nations. Tostan's work centers on using education and awareness of human rights as a platform for empowering the people to make thoughtful and informed decisions that might improve their lives.  Tostan's outreach is community based and most often begins with the women. Traditionally in virtually all African cultures, women have a subservient role to men.  They are often treated as chattel, sold into marriage at a young age, considered unworthy of education, good mostly for birthing and raising children.   One very unsettling aspect of life for females throughout Africa is something called, 'the tradition'. It involves the ceremonial cutting of a girl's genitals,  specifically the clitoris and the labia around the vagina opening, at a very young age.  For perhaps a thousand years - no one know exactly how long -  this practice, called female genital cutting, or FGC, has been a rite of passage for a girl,  thought to be crucial to a girl child's worthiness for marriage and motherhood.  Those who endure FGC are subjected to extraordinary suffering. Beyond the terrible pain that comes with having these most sensitive tissues mutilated, almost always without anesthetic, FGC is often done with an unsterile blade that has been used for the same purpose multiple times.  The health effects of FGC, including severe hemorrhaging and infection, are often permanently debilitating, even deadly. 

World Health Organization studies indicate that 140 million women around the world have been subjected to FGC,  101 million of those in Africa. 

Aimee Molly's book,  However Long the Night is a powerful narrative of a young woman, a Caucasian American, who arrived in West Africa in 1974, pursuing a master's degree in French language, hoping for a future as a linguist/translator. Almost forty years later,  Molly Melching has created of one of the most effective educational outreach non-profits operating on the African continent. 

As of April, 2013,  in Senegal, 5,423 communities have abandoned the practice of female genital cutting.  Much of the credit for this goes to Tostan.

 

 

 

 

Tostan employs a patient, culturally respectful style in its community based education, conducted by Senegalese facilitators, in the local language. Reading, writing, basic math, farming technique, water management,  hygiene, and personal health are at the core of the Tostan learning. Perhaps the most important lesson imparted to the women who participate is the knowledge that they, as human beings and citizens, have certain 'inalienable rights'.  When they learn this, illiterate women from the smallest backwater villages begin to rethink their lives.  This process has led to the renunciation of FGC in thousands of communities in Senegal,  the widespread repudiation of early childhood marriage, and a new acceptance of women in community leadership roles.

I love However Long the Night.  My admiration for Molly Melching and her team is boundless.   How can one not be inspired by a person, whose tireless commitment and perseverance has transformed an entire nation in dramatic fashion in one generation? 

I'll save the rest of what I have to say on this subject for the next blog entry,  which will tell my own personal revelation on this subject and how my recent connection with Tostan, and one of its leaders, Gannon Gillespie, has been a great benefit to my own writing.

Here is a link to the Tostan website    www.tostan.org

What Happened to the Birds - Part Two

I didn't expect to be following up my last entry with another on the same subject, but then, I didn't expect to read something as troubling as what follows  either.

The chemical giants in their infinite wisdom have figured out how to engineer pesticide right into the seed they sell to farmers and landscapers. 

"Once again this spring, farmers will begin planting at least 140 million acres—a land mass roughly equal to the combined footprints of California and Washington state—with seeds (mainly corn and soy) treated with a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. Commercial landscapers and home gardeners will get into the act, too—neonics are common in lawn and garden products"

Is it any wonder that songbirds and honey bees  have been decimated? Is monetary profit the only basis for assigning value in our world these days? It sure seems so.



______________________

Not Just the Bees: Bayer's Pesticide May Harm Birds, Too

—By Tom Philpott

Mother Jones Magazine

| Wed Mar. 27, 2013 3:00 AM PDT

 

Geese in a corn field Jimmy Smith/Flickr

 

 

Once again this spring, farmers will begin planting at least 140 million acres—a land mass roughly equal to the combined footprints of California and Washington state—with seeds (mainly corn and soy) treated with a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. Commercial landscapers and home gardeners will get into the act, too—neonics are common in lawn and garden products. If you're a regular reader of my blog, you know all of that is probably bad news for honeybees and other pollinators, as a growing body of research shows—including three studies released just ahead of last year's planting season.

 

But bees aren't the only iconic springtime creature threatened by the ubiquitous pesticide, whose biggest makers are the European giants Bayer and Syngenta. It turns out that birds are too, according to an alarming analysis co-authored by Pierre Mineau, a retired senior research scientist at Environment Canada (Canada's EPA), published by the American Bird Conservancy. And not just birds themselves, but also the water-borne insect species that serve as a major food source for birds, fish, and amphibians.
 

The article isn't peer-reviewed, but Mineau is a formidable scientist. In February, he published a peer-reviewed paper in PLoS One concluding that pesticides, and not habitat loss, have likely been driving bird-population declines in the United States.

 

That paper didn't delve into specific pesticides. For his American Bird Conservancy paper, Mineau and his co-author, Cynthia Palmer, looked at a range of research on the effects of neonics on birds and water-borne insects, from papers by independent researchers to industry-funded studies used in the EPA's deregulation process and obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

For the most vulnerable bird species, they found, consuming even two corn seeds coated with Bayer's blockbuster neonic clothianidin can have lethal effects.

 

Their conclusion: Neonics are highly mobile and persistent once they're unleashed into ecosystems, and they pose a serious threat to birds and the insects they feed on. The EPA, they continue, has in some cases severely underestimated the danger and in other cases simply ignored it. The underestimation, they argue, mainly stems from the widespread use of two bird species to judge toxicity, mallards and bobwhites. But many other bird species are more vulnerable to neonics than those two, and Mineau's paper concludes the EPA, in its risk assessment used to register a raft of neonic products over the past two decades, "underestimates toxicity by 1.5 to 10 fold if the intent of the exercise is to protect most species, not merely mallards and bobwhites." For the most vulnerable bird species, they found, consuming even two corn seeds coated with Bayer's blockbuster neonic clothianidin can have lethal effects.

The authors point to several instances of EPA scientists raising serious concerns about the ecological impacts of these pesticides, only to see them registered anyway. Back in 2003, when the EPA was first considering registering Bayer's clothianidin, an agency risk assessment concluded that "exposure to treated seed through ingestion might result in chronic risk to birds and mammals, especially mammals where consumption of 1-2 seeds only could push them to an exposure level at which reproductive effects are expected," the authors report. The assessment also described the chemical as persistent and mobile, with "potential to leach to groundwater as well as runoff to surface waters." So what happened to clothianidin? A "plethora of registered uses for clothianidin followed in quick succession," they report. The pesticide is now used on corn, soybeans, cotton, pears, potatoes, tree nuts, mustard greens, and more.

Mineau's paper notes in passing that the EPA also identified potential threats from clothianidin to bees as early as 2003, adding, however, that the pollinator issue is "outside the scope of the current review." I told the sordid tale of clothianidin's march through EPA registration despite its own scientists' bee concerns in this 2010 post.

But the most pernicious effect of neonics on birds may be indirect: By leaching into water and accumulating in streams and ponds, neonics also attack a major component of birds' food supply: insects that hang out in water, what Mineau calls the "bottom of the aquatic food chain." The EPA has severely underestimated the risk to such insects, they charge. For the neonic imidacloprid, they argue, a "scientifically defensible reference level" to gauge when the pesticide causes harm to insects is 0.2 ug/l. "European regulators acknowledge that acute effects are likely at levels exceeding 0.5 ug/l," they write. "In contrast, the EPA’s regulatory and non-regulatory reference levels are set at 35 ug/l."

Based on Mineau's analysis, the American Bird Conservancy is calling for a ban on the practice of using neonics to treat seed, joining a similar plea from the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Meanwhile the EPA has been conducting a "comprehensive re-evaluation of these pesticides," but has taken no action to stop their use, and isn't expected to complete its review until 2018 at the earliest. Mineau told me that he presented his case on neonics and birds to the EPA last week, urging them to "speed things up a bit" on the review. I asked him how his message went over. "I didn't get the answer, that, sure, we'll have it done next year," he said. Instead, he added, the agency stressed it would stick to its current process. And that means heavy neonic exposure for the birds and the bees for at least another half-decade.




 

Bill Gates - Reinventing the Rubber

Bill Gates is acting on an inspiration.  He's offered a prize of $100,000 to anyone who can reinvent the condom.  The twist; he wants a condom that actually improves the sexual experience.

Condoms are a very cheap and effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to protect against STDs, including HIV. 

What Bill Gates wants is a condom that enhances the pleasure of sexual intimacy.  A condom that feels so good, people prefer sex with it to sex without it.

We live in a world where sex without protection results in many pregnancies that are unwanted. Worldwide, estimates are that 40% of all pregnancies are unwanted.  If one believes as I do that every child should be a wanted child,  the fact that four in ten pregnancies are not wanted has to be troubling.   How do we change that?  First by making condoms widely available at little or no cost. Second, by taking steps to encourage their use.  

The African continent is the epicenter for unwanted pregnancies, maternal death during childbirth, unchecked population growth, and the spread of  STDs from unprotected sex.  The biggest impediment to fixing these festering challenges is lack of reproductive choice and access to contraception.   For women in Africa, as well as other places around the world, it's not just lack of access to contraception that is standing in the way of real reproductive choice. Much of the problem is with the social values of men.  Too many remain culturally hostile to the use of contraception.

Bill Gates wants to change that by developing a way to enhance the sexual experience through the use of condoms that heighten the pleasure of sex. No telling if such a condom can actually be invented, but Gates has provided the incentive to try and make it happen. It's a terrific idea and very much worth pursuing.

Bill and Melinda Gates are doing great things with their mega-money.  I admire them tremendously for being the example all people blessed with massive wealth should emulate.

_______________


Bill Gates Condom Challenge: Foundation Will Pay You To Reinvent The Rubber

      

The Huffington Post | By Jessica Prois Posted: 03/22/2013 1:49 pm EDT | Updated: 03/22/2013 1:51 pm EDT

 

Though condoms come in different textures, sizes and even tastes, these options aren't enticing enough to get people to actually use them in many parts of the world.

And the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation wants to change that. The nonprofit, which tackles global health issues, is seeking submissions for the "Next Generation Condom" challenge. The initiative asks for innovative designs that create a sexual experience that feels even better than not using a condom. The new design must also protect from the spread of HIV and disease, of course.
"What if we could develop a condom that would provide all the benefit of our current versions, without the drawbacks? Even better, what if we could develop one that was preferred to no condom?" The Gates Foundation's blog reads.

The foundation cites deterrents to using protection such as difficulties in negotiating condom use among commercial sex workers. What's more, in many places there are cultural barriers thwarting use of protection. In Zambia, for example, requesting use of a rubber can lead to domestic violence, AIDS Alliance reports.

Despite the facts surrounding protection from condoms, usage is sparse in places where HIV is most prevalent, Stephen Becker, deputy director of the HIV Program at the Gates Foundation, told MyNorthwest.com. So he said it's time to innovate.

"The more appealing a condom is for a man to use, the greater likelihood of use there will be," he said. "And we're not talking about a particularly expensive technology here by any means. They are the least expensive HIV technology."

The Gates Foundatinon will give away $100,000 to the winner through its Grand Challenge Exploration, $200 million in grants to fund research that fights disease in the developing world


Here is a link to the Gates Foundation Condom Challenge...http://www.grandchallenges.org/Explorations/Topics/Pages/NextGenerationCondomRound11.aspx



 

Hans Rosling - Wealth Equals Health

This is the second entry I have done on Hans Rosling,  Professor of International Health at Sweden's Karolinska Institute, and charismatic purveyor of civilizational scale data for Gapminder.

Hans Rosling

 

Here is a link to Rosling's very engaging video presentation correlating income and health...http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jbkSRLYSojo

A Fierce Green Fire

Those of us who care about our earth and are committed to saving the environment from polluters and people for whom profit is the be all and end all, can draw much inspiration from this new movie.

Here is a link to the movie trailer for A Fierce Green Fire...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94zbq5Vaod0&feature=player_embedded

Here is a link to the website for the movie...http://www.afiercegreenfire.com/

Hardwired to Like It

Just ran across this article by Liz Langley on Alternet. It confirms the science about sex. We are hard wired to like it.. This is a big reason why those who embrace cultural strictures that deny their sexuality often find themselves struggling against their instincts. Some cultural restraint is clearly appropriate, but we should not be heaping scorn on people just because their choices in sexual expression don't conform to our own.


____________

10 Interesting Facts About Your Brain on Sex

January 15, 2013

 

By Liz Langley 

|

Remember the Seinfeld episode where Jerry’s penis has an argument with his brain and loses [3]? It’s a classic: we’ve all been torn between love/lust and logic. (If you haven't, check for a belly button because this isn’t your home world.) This brilliant bit of comedy is totally relatable but a little misleading in one way: the brain is the one that sends signals to the penis in the first place. It’s pretty reliably running things, IMing the other body parts like crazy, regulating chemicals, making calculations and responding to stimuli, half the time without you even knowing about it. There’s a reason “the brains of the outfit” denotes someone who is really in charge.

So why does the brain sometimes signal us to do stupid things, especially in regard to sex and relationships? Isn’t that a little like one conjoined twin punching the other in the mouth? How does the brain decide who attracts us? What is it doing behind our backs, and how do we change as we mature?

Here are some of the ways the joys, quandaries and mechanics of sex are all in your head. 

1. Size matters.
The preoptic area of the hypothalamus [4], which regulates mating behavior, is a little more than twice as big in men as it is in women and has twice as many cells. Medical Net says difference starts to show up when we’re about four years old.  

2. Location. Location. Location.
The male brain devotes twice as much real estate to sex as the female brain. They think about it, but do they listen about it?
Some men certainly do, and maybe more will now that there’s visible evidence of what some women have been trying to tell them for quite some time: there is a great deal of difference between vaginal and clitoral stimulation. Now you can see it. Researchers at Rutgers University used an MRI to map what locations on the sensory cortex correspond to the vagina, clitoris and nipples. All three clearly in very different locations in the brain. (Click and scroll down for the images.) [5]
The fact that nipple stimulation lit up the areas corresponding to the genitals as well as the chest area seemed to come as a surprise. Linda Geddes of New Scientist quotes [6] researcher Barry Komisaruk as saying, "When I tell my male neuroscientist colleagues about this, they say: 'Wow, that's an exception to the classical homunculus,'" he says. "But when I tell the women they say: 'Well, yeah?' It may help explain why a lot of women claim that nipple stimulation is erotic, he adds.”
Claim?
Anyway, those images are pretty spiffy, and they're ripe for a new line of greeting cards. Valentine's Day is coming and those hearts and cherubs need a break.

3. In what part of the brain do we find the “Not tonight, honey" headache?
It was a comic trope of the olden days for women who didn’t want sex to opt out due to headache, but it turns out migraine sufferers seem to have a higher libido than other sufferers. LiveScience reported on a 2006 [7] study from the Wake Forest School of Medicine which found that people who suffer from migraine headaches reported a sex drive about 20% higher than those prone to regular tension headaches. The key might be the neurotransmitter serotonin. High serotonin levels are associated with low libido; the researchers reported that migraine sufferers had low serotonin levels. And About.com reports [8] that a 2001 survey of women who had sex during migraines 30% noticed a decrease in pain, 5.3% said the pain increased, and 17.5% reported the pain went away.
It’s hard to believe anyone can have sex during a migraine, but for that 17.5% it sounds like the traditional “Go to bed,” advice worked out pretty nicely (even if "and get some rest" wasn't part of it)
.
4. Considering all the kinds of headaches it causes rather than cures, why do we even have sex in the first place?
Dr. Joseph Shrand [9] is an instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. (He also happens to be Joe from the TV show Zoom! [10] -- if you’re a '70s kid that brought on some of the feel-good chemistry we’re going to talk about in a minute.) Shrand has a wonderfully concise way of explaining why we let ourselves in for the sturm und drang of sex. When we describe love and sexual passion “we use the word 'intoxicating' and that’s a very important word,” Shrand said in a phone interview. “There is dopamine [11]involved in that sort of lustful attraction,” a neurotransmitter associated with excitement, reward, desire, pleasure and in some case addiction [12].
“When we are falling in love with someone all we can think about is that person…it’s a remarkable, remarkable feeling and it’s a pleasure. There’s huge biological significance to that. If we didn’t feel pleasure when we have sex we wouldn’t have babies. I mean, can you imagine is sex was really uncomfortable and horrible and not reinforcing? Why would you do it?”
Search me.
“The orgasm is pleasurable as a way of saying 'We want to do this again!' You want to do this as often as you can and if you don’t have somebody to do it with you’ll figure out how to do it anyway,” all of which he says is adaptive because it’s how we get our genes into the next generation.
The trick, Shrand says, is getting your limbic system [13], an ancient part of your brain which is the seat of those primal drives and emotions, to work with your “new brain,” the more evolved neocortex that helps you consider causes and consequences. “You have to be able to shift gears in your prefrontal cortex and make a plan,” a plan to get that person, to keep that person, to understand the consequences of what you’re doing, which isn’t easy when your brain is “overwhelmed by dopamine and lust,” he says. “It’s amazing we have relationships at all.”
But dopamine alone won’t bind you to someone. That’s the province of oxytocin, which has been called “the cuddle hormone [14]." Oxytocin creates a feeling of warmth, security, bonding [15] and trust. “It’s a much deeper, more powerful and more modern part of love,” Shrand says, “because oxytocin is a much more complicated chemical which implies it’s really relatively more recent than [a simple one like] dopamine.” So when you find yourself in the grip of lust versus logic, that may well be the primal brain and brain chemistry arguing with the more modern parts. It’s real and we all go through it. Hopefully that raised your oxytocin enough to feel a little better about the whole crazy mess.

5. The downside to bonding: getting stuck.
If our brains are so smart why do they let us attach to people who might not be so great for us? Catherine Salmon [16], an associate professor of psychology at the University of Redlands, says the answer might have something to do with oxytocin, that very same chemical that creates those feelings of warmth and security. It sounds great, right? So how could something so good make us stick with people who aren’t?
“Oxytocin is not only released during birth and breastfeeding but also during orgasm,” Salmon wrote via email. “As a result, you feel more attached to the guy who you shared that orgasm with, which is great if he's a good mate choice but maybe not so much if you're Rhianna and he's Chris Brown. He may be a good lover but poor dad material, and yet you'll be attached to him and perhaps stick with the relationship longer than you should.”
So if you hear Dionne Warwick [17] when he walks into the room and your friends -- who didn’t share an oxytocin moment with him -- hiss like wet cats, you may be seeing the situation through oxytocin-colored glasses (I have so many if I buy another pair I get the next one free).

6. There’s a reason people shout “Oh, God!”
Sexual relationships are powerful enough to feel like spiritual experiences and there may well be a good reason for that. From The Scientific American Book of Love, Sex and the Brain [18] by Judith Horstman and Scientific American:

“Jefferson University neuroscientist Andrew Newberg scanned the brains of praying Catholic nuns and meditating Buddhist monks and found some overlap between their neural activity and that of sexually aroused subjects (as seen in scans from other researchers). The correlation makes sense, according to Newberg. Just as sex involves a rhythmic activity so do religous practices such as chanting, dancing and repetition of a mantra. Religous experiences produce sensations of bliss, transcendence beyond one’s self and unity with the loved one that is very like the ecstasy of orgasm. That may be why some mystics, such as St. Teresa, describe their rapture with romantic or even sexual language.”

The book also notes that another study found that thinking about God and religion goes on in various parts of the brain, including the same areas we use to think about mundane experiences. No single "God spot" has been pinpointed in the brain. So you'll have to settle for the other G spot a little lower down.

7. Testosterone: The puppet master.
Speaking of heavenly, let’s talk about male anatomy for a moment. Wonderful though it is, it has its share of headaches and this certainly sounds like one. Oxytocin may keep us attached in ways we normally wouldn’t want to be, but testosterone has men doing things they don’t even know they’re doing, like getting erections. According to Louann Brizendine in The Male Brain, [19] “These reflexive erections are different from true sexual arousal because they come from unconscious signals from his spinal cord and brain, not from a conscious desire to have sex. The testosterone receptors that live on the nerve cells in a man’s spinal cord, testicles, penis, and brain are what activate his entire sexual network. Women are surprised that the penis can operate on autopilot and even more surprised that men don’t always know when they’re getting an erection….We women often notice the rising tide before he does.”
We notice because we care.

8. So testosterone is pretty powerful; does it ever relax its kung-fu grip on a guy?
Indeed it does. Marlene Zuk, professor of ecology, dvolution and behavior at the University of Minnesota, notes in her forthcoming book Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us About Sex, Diet and How We Live [20] that “conventional wisdom holds that men are unreliable long-term mates” because they’re always questing for new partners, but “what if the urge to find a new mate is ameliorated by the experience of fatherhood itself?”
In a long-term study of 600 men in the Philippines, anthropologist Lee Gettler of Northwestern University measured the men’s testosterone and predicted those with higher testosterone levels at the start of the study would become “partnered fathers” by the follow-up, four and a half years later. And he was right.
“But then something interesting happened,” Zuk writes. “The fathers showed a dramatic decline in testosterone compared with both their own single, pre-paternal levels, as well as the levels of the men who had remained single. What is more, testosterone was lowest in those men who spent at least three hours a day caring for their son or daughter, after controlling for the effects of sleep loss and other variables.”
“This study is illuminating for several reasons,” Zuk writes. First off, the same men being re-measured, instead of fathers being compared to single men, allows for fewer variables. Second “it indicates a finely tuned back-and-forth between a person’s physiology and behavior. Cues from the environment can influence fathers’ hormone levels as well as those of mothers. The scientists suggest that while seeking a mate requires characteristics that may be antithetical to being a good father, it is, in fact, possible to have it all, and testosterone acts as the mediator.”
Finally, Zuk writes "As Peter Gray, an anthropologist at the University of Nevada, pointed out in a commentary accompanying the article, the research serves as a nice case study of the relevance of evolution to everyday human life. The trade-off between mating and parenting is one that is predicted by evolutionary theory, and it means that a longing for new sexual partners might not be part of our heritage.”

9. And you thought your new iPhone was fast.
In 2008, doctors Stephanie Ortigue and Francesco Bianchi-Demicheli found that it took .02 seconds for the brain to register a person in a swimsuit photo as desirable or undesirable. At that speed you’d think it would go “zip!” from the parts that process visuals to the higher parts that make decisions. It did go that way sometimes, but sometimes those higher functioning parts started responding very early, writes Carl Zimmer in Discover magazine [21]. Those higher parts, that handle self-awareness and empathy, might be instructing the eyes on who is attractive and telling the emotional centers how to feel about them.
Yep: the most important decision of your life might have started as a Quick Pick.
10. So my brain looks, debates and decides, like on American Idol?
Right down to the three conferring panelists.
Time magazine’s Maia Salavitz reports [22] that in a study done on speed dating by Trinity College in Ireland [23], male and female subjects were hooked up to an MRI machine and asked to judge potential candidates by photograph before the 5-minute speed-date meeting. The people they thought they’d like and the people they actually asked out matched up 63% of the time to the people they wanted to ask out after the 5-minute date, writes Stephanie Pappas of LiveScience [24] and researchers found out what part of the brains were fired up during that initial decision-making process.
First, Salavitz reports, we have a twofer, the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, which contains two sub-regions: one that judges attractiveness, the other that judges what’s attractive to you, though not necessarily to everyone else (that’s the restromedial prefrontal cortex or rmPFC). The first is what tells me “Ryan Gosling is handsome,” and the second tells me “But I still prefer Benicio del Toro [25].”
The people who got the most positive response aroused the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, “an area that has previously been found to react to appealing faces,” writes Salavitz, but that didn’t mean those people got asked out.
Maybe that’s the rmPFC butting in and saying “Just cuz she’s cute doesn’t mean she’s for you."
And that’s why they have three judges on "American Idol."
These are just a few of the ways your brain is trying to guide you through the awesomely complicated world of lust and romance. It might not look like the sexiest body part, but it really is. Which body part do you think came up with Love to Love You Baby [26]?

 

---

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/10-interesting-facts-about-your-brain-sex

Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/liz-langley
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WyojQFJY1w
[4] http://www.news-medical.net/health/Hypothalamus-Males-and-Females.aspx
[5] http://www.newscientist.com/articleimages/dn20770/1-sex-on-the-brain-what-turns-women-on-mapped-out.html
[6] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20770-sex-on-the-brain-what-turns-women-on-mapped-out.html
[7] http://www.livescience.com/10533-tonight-honey-migraine.html
[8] http://headaches.about.com/lw/Health-Medicine/Alternative-treatments/How-Sex-May-Relieve-Migraine-Pain.htm
[9] http://www.drshrand.com/
[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzlmZa20MLU
[11] http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/dopamine
[12] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-wise/201209/why-were-all-addicted-texts-twitter-and-google
[13] http://biology.about.com/od/anatomy/a/aa042205a.htm
[14] http://www.divinecaroline.com/22188/96162-cuddle-hormone-lesser-known-effects-oxytocin
[15] http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/love-drug-oxytocin-cuddle-chemical-scientists-makes-mothers/story?id=15330910%23.UOzdVpjK0UU
[16] http://www.redlands.edu/academics/college-of-arts-sciences/undergraduate-studies/psychology/2212.aspx
[17] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WWjG5U8rjA
[18] http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-American-Book-Love-Brain/dp/0470647787
[19] http://www.amazon.com/Male-Brain-Louann-Brizendine/dp/0767927540/ref=la_B001H6RZB8_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1357706913&sr=1-2
[20] http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Really-Tells-about-ebook/dp/B007Q6XM1A%C2%A0%0Ahttp://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Really-Tells-about-ebook/dp/B007Q6XM1A%C2%A0%0Ahttp://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Really-Tells-about-ebook/dp/B007Q6XM1A
[21] http://discovermagazine.com/2009/oct/10-where-does-sex-live-in-brain-from-top-to-bottom%23.UOyjdJjK0UU
[22] http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/08/how-speed-dating-works-in-the-brain/
[23] http://www.jneurosci.org/content/32/45/15647.abstract
[24] http://www.livescience.com/24593-brain-love-dating-decisions.html
[25] http://www.tressugar.com/Do-Tell-Whos-Your-Favorite-Ugly-Hot-Guy-3456603
[26] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1ArZEFwRsY
[27] http://www.alternet.org/tags/sex-0
[28] http://www.alternet.org/tags/orgasm
[29] http://www.alternet.org/tags/men
[30] http://www.alternet.org/tags/women-0
[31] http://www.alternet.org/tags/brain
[32] http://www.alternet.org/tags/science-0
[33] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

Alexandra Paul on Human Overpopulation

About 15 years ago, I joined forces with the actress Alexandra Paul and two friends,  Michael Tobias, and Greg Molina, to produce Jam Packed, our first of two education videos for teens about human overpopulation.  Later, Marc and Michelle Griffith joined us on the second project titled, The Cost of Cool,  which focused on the impact of human personal consumption on our planet and its rapidly eroding resource base.  Working with Alexandra and our colleagues was great fun and the two award winning videos we produced went on to be used in schools all across America. 

When we first began to work together, the world population was around six billion.  In the decade and a half since then, we've added another billion plus to the population. It's no wonder the world is in so much trouble on so many fronts. Deforestation, ocean resource depletion, fresh water scarcy, climate change; all of these global scale challenges are tied directly to a simple fact: too many people chansing after too few resources.

Alexandra Paul just delivered her first TED presentation on the population issue.  She believes curbing population growth is the most important thing humans can do. I agree wholeheartedly with her.  When I started this blog about ten months ago, one of the first people I wrote about  (3/14/12) was Alexandra. She's an extraordinarty person.  I urge everyone to take a moment to check out her TED presentation. It's only nine minutes long. In that brief time, she presents the ugly facts in powerful fashion and makes the case that we all have an obligation to be a part of the solution to this most basic of all human challenges.

Here is a link to Alexandra Paul's TED Presentation... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNxctzyNxC0

Unify - 12/21/12

An amazing global event is happening on Friday, 12/21/12.  No, it's not the Mayan Apocalypse.   It's a global communion of meditation...a reflection of unity that involves humans from every corner of our Earth. This event is being coordinated through a website called Unify

Efforts like this give me hope...


Here is a link to a video about this extraordinary global mind meld.
http://unify.org/#prettyPhoto[videos]/0/

Mass Murder and the American Culture

Yesterday, a young man with mental problems drove to a primary school in Newtown, Connecticut  with two handguns and a military assault weapon. He went into two classrooms and killed 20 children, none older than seven years.  He also killed six adults, including the school's principal.

Two days earlier, right here in Portland, Oregon where we live, another mentally disturbed young man opened fire in a shopping mall filled with Christmas shoppers. Just months ago, yet another  unbalanced fool killed a bunch of people in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.

America is the murder capital of the world. Something over 30 men, women, and children are killed in acts of violence every single day in this country, many with guns.  Why?  Why is mass murder a particularly American brand of insanity? To me, it comes down to three things: inadequate care for mental Illness,  lax gun control, and cultural signals that celebrate violent behavior.  Probably a lot of people would agree with that assessment. It's doesn't seem like rocket science.

It would be easy to blame the National Rifle Association for the gun mayhem that plagues our society. The NRA certainly is culpable to some degree.  Wayne LaPierre, the sociopath that runs that organization, is an extremist to the core. He wields the considerable political power of the NRA like a club to intimidate politicians who open themselves to even the slightest possibility of reasonable gun regulation. Why is LaPierre and why is the NRA so seriously reactionary when a poll indicates that three of four members of the NRA are open to thoughtfully applied gun control?  I believe it comes down to this: Wayne LaPierre's first loyalty is to the firearms industry, not to the NRA's individual gun owner members.   LaPierre is most interested in keeping markets open and unencumbered for guns and ammunition.   NRA members need to stand up and demand new leadership.  The NRA should be representing member rights, not those of businesses that profit selling assault weapons, and hollow-point ammunition, and oversized cartridge clips.

Another big problem: inadequate care for mental Illness. States have traditionally carried the burden for public oversight of mentally ill people. These days, too many people suffering from schizophrenia and other mental diseases are left to fend for themselves.  Since the 1980s when Reagan Republicans began their 'smaller government' drumbeat,  states have found themselves with ever less money and political will to take care of those with mental illness.  These days, people who are indigent with mental troubles often end up on the streets. If the states don't provide adequate support and oversight of  people with mental illness, who will?  Who protects the public from the kind of mayhem a schizophrenic individual with a gun can unleash on society?  So many of these mass murder situations are caused by people who should be under closely monitored care.   Conservatives have squeezed the life out of government programs designed to deal with this kind of societal threat.  Instead of pissing away money on aircraft carriers and other weapons systems we don't need, we need to rethink our public funding priorities, focusing on the things that affect the life of every citizen. I have no problem paying a bit more in taxes if it means nut cases capable of mass murder will get adequate treatment before they resort to violent acts of insanity.

Violence is an intoxicant in our culture. From the sports we play on athletic fields to the games we play on our computers and iphones, the lesson we learn is that survival is about destroying your opponent. I'm not sure there is much that can be done to insulate people against violence in sports and entertainment.  What we can do a lot better is teach our children important lessons on conflict resolution...ability to compromise...willingness to see issues from the perspective of others...recognizing that violence has no place in solving real world problems. 

As citizens, we bear ultimate responsibility.  When important issues are on the table, we have an obligation to inform ourselves.  We can't do what too many of us are doing; that is to allow ourselves to be swayed by the propaganda and bullshit arguments from special interest groups like the National Rifle Association.  You don't look to the fox for answers about how to guard the hen house.

At the end of the day, we depend on the politicians we elect to provide leadership. Mass gun murder must not be tolerated. A proper and concerted political response is required. Nothing less should be accepted.  President Obama needs to show some spine and step up. Our Senators and Congressional delegates need to step up.  They need to ignore the NRA's intimidation game and do what's right for society. If they fail us, they need to be replaced. We need to support candidates for office that will do the right thing. It's on us, all of us, to make sure every effort is made to protect children from being victims of senseless gun violence.

Selecting for Stupidity

I like the image below. It accompanied an article I just read on the Common Dreams webpage that highlights the research of  Gerald Crabtree, Stanford University.  Crabtree claims that human intelligence peaked at least ten thousand years ago when humans lived as stone age hunter-gatherers.

 

 

Crabtree asserts that life was hard in the stone age.  In his view, survival of the fittest definitely applied.  Being smart provided an extra edge.   Since then,  being smart has become less important to everyday survival. Perhaps that accounts for why humanity seems to be sleepwalking into an increasingly ominous future.

Published on Tuesday, November 13, 2012 by Common Dreams

Human Intelligence Peaked Thousands of Years Ago: Study

Stupidity trend will continue, says new research, but collective education can save us

- Common Dreams staff

Controversial study suggests human intelligence peaked several thousand years ago and we've been on an intellectual and emotional decline ever since.

Humankind's intelligence peaked thousands of years ago and advanced civilization has made life so easy for so many that our trend towards stupidity will continue as the ingenuity and intellect once needed for basic survival erode even further.

This, anyway, is the argument of a new study out in the journal Trends in Genetics, authored by Stanford University professor Gerald Crabtree.

Crabtree's study claims that harmful genetic mutations—occurring generation after generation as society advanced—have reduced our "higher thinking" abilities and the accumulated result has led to a gradual dwindling of our intelligence as a species.

The Guardian explains that Crabtree's thinking is a speculative idea—one he'd be happy to have prove wrong—but also a simple one:

In the past, when our ancestors (and those who failed to become our ancestors) faced the harsh realities of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, the punishment for stupidity was more often than not death. And so, Crabtree argues, enormous evolutionary pressure bore down on early humans, selecting out the dimwits, and raising the intellect of the survivors' descendants. But not so today.

“I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas and a clear-sighted view of important issues,” Professor Crabtree says in the paper.

“Furthermore, I would guess that he or she would be among the most emotionally stable of our friends and colleagues. I would also make this wager for the ancient inhabitants of Africa, Asia, India or the Americas, of perhaps 2,000 to 6,000 years ago,” he continues. “The basis for my wager comes from new developments in genetics, anthropology, and neurobiology that make a clear prediction that our intellectual and emotional abilities are genetically surprisingly fragile.”

Speaking with the Telegraph, Prof Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist at Oxford University, pushes back against Crabtree's hypothesis, saying:

[Prof Crabtree] takes the line that our intelligence is designed to allow us to build houses and throw spears straighter at pigs in the bush, but that is not the real driver of brain size.
In reality what has driven human and primate brain evolution is the complexity of our social world [and] that complex world is not going to go away. Doing things like deciding who to have as a mate or how best to rear your children will be with us forever.
Personally I am not sure that in the foreseeable future there is any reason to be panicking at all, the rate of evolution with things like this takes tens of thousands of years...no doubt the ingenuity of science will find solutions to these things if we do not blow ourselves up first.

Other scientists were also skeptical. “At first sight this is a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any,” said Professor Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London.

"I could just as well argue that mutations have reduced our aggression, our depression and our penis length but no journal would publish that. Why do they publish this?” Professor Jones said.
“I am an advocate of Gradgrind science – facts, facts and more facts; but we need ideas too, and this is an ideas paper although I have no idea how the idea could be tested,” he said.

"You don't get Stephen Hawking 200,000 years ago, he just doesn't exist," University of Warwick psychologist Thomas Hills told website LiveScience.
 

"But now we have people of his intellectual capacity doing things and making insights that we would never have achieved in our environment of evolutionary adaptation."
 

Despite his own research, Crabtree does not predict a future of diminishing returns for civilization and says that the species' ability to thrive is inherent in advanced civilization, and specifically in our ability to share information with one another. "Remarkably it seems that although our genomes are fragile," Crabtree says, "our society is robust almost entirely by virtue of education, which allow strengths to be rapidly distributed to all members."
 

The Independent offers this quick survey of man's descent into stupidity:

Hunter-gatherer man
The human brain and its immense capacity for knowledge evolved during this long period of prehistory when we battled against the elements
Athenian man
The invention of agriculture less than 10,000 years ago and the subsequent rise of cities such as Athens relaxed the intensive natural selection of our “intelligence genes”.
Couch-potato man
As genetic mutations increase over future generations, are we doomed to watching soap-opera repeats without knowing how to use the TV remote control?
iPad man
The fruits of science and technology enabled humans to rise above the constraints of nature and cushioned our fragile intellect from genetic mutations.
_________________________

This piece comes from the Common Dreams webpage, a great source of progressive journalism.