The Human Touch

We're currently living in an amazingly connected world, thanks to 24-hour news channels, satellite TV/telephone, the internet, social networks, 3G notworks, cell phone and other innovations.  Because we are such a connected world, last week I was able to sit and watch live streaming broadcast of parts of the rescue of 33 Chilean miners, broadcast by a British television company.  Forget two places at once, I was (virtually) in three places at once.  More if you count the fact that I was on the Tor network while doing all this, so there were at least three other intermediary locations as well.  In many ways, we've condensed the globe down to the size of computer chip.

But more importantly- do you know all the neighbors on your street?  If you were out of flour, would you have to go to the store or could you ask a friend next door?  With internet bullying in the forefront the past couple of weeks, I think we really need to consider our reactions to the virtual world and the physical world.  I'm not knocking the virtual world- I think the interconnectedness is great.  We can experience other cultures, get our news from a variety of sources, learn about so much more than our own little block, but it's for sure not the end-all-be-all, and it's important to keep that in perspective.

As humans, we're social beings and wired with the need for interaction with others.  There's variation in how much interaction we need or want; ask an introvert and an extrovert how much time they like to be with people in a given day and you'll get vastly different responses.  But besides the variation in quantity, there's also variation in quality.  In person contact makes the biggest difference in our lives, with phone contact coming in close.  Written letters make a fair amount of difference in how connected we feel to people, although virtual communication over the internet registers as almost nothing positive psychologically.  Especially in times of stress, we need human contact.  We need to feel like we belong.  We need to feel like we have a place to turn.  We need a shoulder upon which to cry.  We don't get those things from the newer forms of communication.  Instead, most people tend to feel less connected.  There is no human touch like in a hand written letter, no quick response like a phone call, and definitely no physical connection or facial display of empathy.  When the chips are already proverbially down, that added draw on our emotional reserves can be tragic.

Additionally, the anonymity of the internet allows people to not have to face the consequences of their actions, so the norm of being civil gets broken down.  Unfortunately, it's harder to break down our need for empathy.  All in all, moving more and more of our communication into the virtual world leaves fewer of our social needs met.  At its worst, we end up with situations like some of the recent bullying and harassment cases, and as we've seen, potential to tragic deaths.  Figuring out how to navigate this brave new world is going to have more bumps along the road, but I'm hopeful that we'll manage to figure it out.

And yes, I get the irony of writing this all on a blog instead of calling to talk to someone about it.  :)

Silliness

So the Duggars announced they're having child number nineteen. I am less than thrilled with this, although the general consensus appears to be elation among those who watch the family's show. Disclaimer- I don't watch their show, what I know of them comes from their website and other outside sources, but not their show. We don't have cable, I refuse to pay for TV.

This news and the reaction to it has really gotten me thinking. As an ecologist, nineteen children is anathema to my understanding. That's not ecologically responsible. We are close to or are already past the number of humans that can sustainably live on this planet. Don't believe me? Read How Many People Can the Earth Support? by Joel Cohen. Check out the Population Reference Bureau. Plenty of other sources, let me know if you're interested and I can provide you some starting material.

But the Duggars make their own soap, grow vegetables, buy used when possible, so the popular thought is that the live a more eco-concious life than most people, and thus have a smaller ecological footprint, right? I heartily disagree, personally. Plus the argument is that having children is a right, and no one should stand in the way of that right.

Contrast this thinking with Nadya Suleman, of octuplet fame earlier this year. She gave birth to eight children in one stay in labor and delivery, and is hated by many of the same people that love the Duggars. What are the differences? Well, for one, Nadya is single. And poor. And used IVF to have her children. I've heard plenty of times that Nadya had no right to have those children, which added to her six already made a total of fourteen kids.

So are children a right or aren't they? Rights are not earned by one's wealth, so the critical difference shouldn't be economic status- rights are rights. The right to parent also shouldn't depend on marital status. Few people say unwed teens have no right to be parents, and the LGBT groups are gaining the right to parent in lots of states. So that's not the critical difference. Both the Duggars and Nadya claim that all of their children are wanted and loved, and both are making money off of their children through marketing books, interviews and television, so those things are the same. Nadya has been criticised as being an unfit parent, but the Duggars pair children up to have the older ones raise the younger, and I don't see that proving to be "parentally fit", besides "fitness" as a parent is very much a subjective term, so that shouldn't decide who gets to have children and who doesn't. Nadya's children are all via IVF, and I have heard more than enough comments about "if you can't reproduce, you shouldn't" to last a lifetime. A large number of US citizens need help to conceive, so I would hope we were past this idea of ability equaling right. It could be a combination of all of these things, but I don't like any of them. Either procreation is a right or it isn't- you don't get to assign qualifiers to rights.

Which brings me to something else that has been wandering around in my head. Baby College is a program in Harlem for low income children. The program aims to give these children the best start that it can, and includes parenting classes, preschool, kindergarten, and charter schools to the children who's parent's stick with it. It's to level the playing field between low income children and middle/upper income children academically, so they have a chance to compete in the college and career world. One key point- the program is designed to get the *children* out of poverty, not the parents. It asks that the parents accept that they have to put their children first, ahead of their own wants. Save for college instead of buying a big TV. Pay for a tutor, not a bigger car. Really things that all parents should be expected to do, because isn't that our job as parents? To put our children first? Doesn't that include leaving an environmental legacy of conscientious resource use, and not abuse? Doesn't that include trying to ensure that our children have a sound environment to enjoy, and to provide them with clean air, water, and food? Why is the message of putting your children first OK for the poor, but not the rich? Children have a right to a sustainable future, and rights do not come with qualifiers.

Missing- One Blogger

I have to first off apologize for being MIA for a while. It's been crazy busy here on Rancho Insano. Mostly family demanding time that I don't have and my desire to meld both artistic and academic endeavors. Oh, and the Invasive Species Conference at UConn. Oi. Vey. Add in an exciting new friendship that is blossoming, gardens that need tending, house that needs cleaning, and projects that need completing, mix well, bake for 45 minutes at 350 degrees Fahrenheit, and voila! One frazzled me. Cool, slice, and enjoy. Best with Pinot Gris and French Vanilla frozen custard.

Kidding. Please don't eat me.

I just need to figure out how to clone myself and I'll have plenty of time. Or learn to say no. Either one. Really, it's OK, don't send out the men in white coats just yet. I've also been suffering some horrible insomnia, so that adds considerable time to the day in which to get s*&% done. School is still a while off, so I have time to keep cranking stuff out before the term starts. I love the pressure. Thrive off of it.

And (spoiler alert)- how in the h&#@ is Captain Jack a Dad?! And a Granddad?! He's easily the hottest bisexual grandpa ever. Love BBC.

I'll be back to more regular blogging shortly, and I promise to be in full swing for ICLW in a few days. How is it that time already? Any ideas for a new intro this month? What are other people doing?

Society in Motion

Can I just say that I hate motion sensor activated devices and their over-prevalence? There is a place for motion sensors, I'll be the first to admit. Security lights, for example. But motion sensor toilets?! When did flushing become too much work? Back from our less than 24 hour trip, I am happy to be outside the grip of motion activated faucets, toilets, soap dispensers, towel dispensers, doors and lights. Argh!

When I go to the bathroom, I don't want to have to do a freaking dance just to avoid being stuck in the dark. Or spend a half an hour trying to find the spot that makes the faucet turn on, only for it to run five times longer than I actually need water. Or to end up with ten feet of towel because Ken decides that he wants to stand under the towel thing. How is this at all good for conservation?

And then there's the not motion activated, but still astoundingly lazy things that eat up resources and energy unnecessarily. Escalators that go constantly. Elevators used by everyone and their brother to go to the second floor. Revolving doors that never stop. Conveyor belts that just steal my groceries before I can get them all on the counter.

Why? Why does everything have to move constantly? Can't we just move things (with our own power) when they need moved? How many kilowatt hours could we save by not having everything running away from us like this? More importantly, how many pounds of CO2 could this spare, if we just got off our butts and did things for ourselves, or didn't have machines running 24/7? Not to mention the step away from the obesity epidemic this would make. Not huge in and of itself, but breaking the paradigm of laziness above all else would be a step forward.