Shhh..

The damn dam is gone!  Free range river, coming through.

You can almost hear the river restoration happening. 

There are no successful ecologists

Or rather, the typical measures of "success" in society or academia really aren't well suited to ecology.  Defining success by the number of papers authored, chapters written, grants won, citations, books edited or written- not so relevant to improving our environment.   Defining success by species named vastly favors ecologists that may have never even considered the term ecology, let alone called themselves such.  Certifications and degrees may be useful, but they simply mark one accomplishment.  Defining success by on-the-ground measures such as species saved, habitats restored, or hectares conserved may accurately measure the success of a person in ecology, but those successes usually can't be attributed to a single person.  Instead, it takes dozens if not hundreds of people including legislators, managers, lay activists, volunteers, land owners, non-profit workers, and more, so a single individual's contribution may be relatively small.  Describing a new ecological theory or building a comprehensive model of some system definitely can change the way the world thinks of ecology and how ecologists research, but it's a lofty goal that very few people- even those currently considered "successful ecologists"- ever attain. 

How do we measure the success of an ecologist then?  I propose that we define success in ecology by living the life we teach- living sustainably, and lowering our own ecological impact as best we can, and the number of people we encourage to live similarly.  If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes the whole world to save our biome.  And thus, I tender my resignation from the pursuit of "success" in ecology.  The other goals I listed above are important also, but they don't define and aren't the primary factor in defining success in this academic discipline. 

Ecology is a process, and as such, one's success in ecology isn't an endpoint, but a process.  If you've written your theory and now do little else while living a comfortable life utilizing lots of resources, you're not a successful ecologist.  You may have once been, but you aren't any longer.  In this case I'd argue this person is a less successful ecologist than the child that helps pull garlic mustard all summer and participates in citizen scientist endeavors regularly.  Maybe the reason so many US citizens have disdain for ecologists is because we're too busy trying to measure our success in disingenuous ways.  Shall we change that?  Will you join me?

Why I love amphibians, and hate the iPad

Obviously, I think amphibians are pretty frakkin' awesome.  If I didn't think thus, I wouldn't be doing the research I am.  What exactly do I find so cool about amphibians, you ask?  Well, quite a bit, really.  For one, the huge diversity of amphibians- morphology, ecology and behavior.  Tails, no tails; gastric brooding, dermal brooding, egg layers; vocalization for mating and social purposes; inhabiting rain forests, vernal pools, and deserts; the ability to distinguish kin, non-kin and other species, as well as recognize familiar and unfamiliar.  These little critters can do a lot. 

They also happen to be extremely basal vertebrates.  Some people might refer to them as "ancient", "lower", or "simple", while talking of mammals for instance as "advanced" or "higher" vertebrates.  This framing might work at a superficial level, but the connotations of these terms include a degree of judgment, that for some reason we mammals are better than our less derived vertebrate relatives.  It's not a coincidence, unfortunately.  Our western cultural history still bears the imprint of many centuries of Christian thought, and it was the teaching of the church for many of those years that there was a natural order, or hierarchy.  organisms were ordered from the lowliest of creatures to the most divine, and one of the early theories of evolution posited that evolution was this slow march replacing organisms with other organisms ever more closely resembling the Christian God.

We now know that that's not at all the case, but this idea that newer is better is pervasive.  In contrast, one could argue that the older less derived forms are actually better suited to competing for resources.  After all, if they weren't better, they wouldn't have exerted a competitive pressure that drove evolution of more complicated traits attempting to compete with older versions.  If amphibians had had no ability to compete with the supposedly vastly superior mammals that came later, then they would have ceased to exist long ago, to be replaced by these newer forms.  The identifying characteristics of the major groups of organisms can be thought of as the innovation(s) that allowed a group to successfully compete with the older, more tested organisms already in existence.

It's an important lesson, I think, that progress isn't better simply because it is new.  Technology for the sake of technology may be interesting from a theoretical approach, but practically speaking, unless it solves some problem or improves life, it's just someone's research.  Especially in our current ecological paradigm of a vast population growing even larger, and polluting in ever increasing quantities, I think it's important to consider practicality and functionality.  Technical obsolescence and style obsolescence may encourage the development and adoption of new technology, but is it always better technology?  The Apple iPad and its launch recently is what has made me consider this paradigm, because I have to ask, "What real purpose does this thing have?"  As far as I can tell, it does nothing new that can't be done using some other already-existing device.What does this product do other than pad Apple's coffers and our landfills?  I'm using this one example, but it's only one of many instances which I think maybe the older answer was just as good, and the newer version serves solely for profit and use of resources.  But then again, I'll also never give up my turntable.  Commence the cries of "Luddite!".

To Leidy

Dwight, Kenny and I got some great news yesterday- one of our sponsored children, Leidy, will be graduating this summer!  I'm just as thrilled hearing this news as I am hearing of Ken's accomplishments at pre-school.  We've been amazingly proud of all three of our graduated children, cried when one child died from dysentery, and been sadly shaken when a field office that served our child closed.  They're not at all related to us, we haven't even met them, just letters exchanged and not enough of those to boot- but we love them and are proud to have them in our lives, however little that may be.

Now, before you start, I do understand the myth of direct giving.  Unlike Jack Nicholson in "About Schmidt", I realize that our checks do not go to Leidy and her family.  There is no bank account into which our deposits go that is just for our sponsored children and their families.  Our money simply goes into a pot, and from that pot there is work done to help children, families, and communities throughout the service area of Children International and Plan USA. 

Honestly, I realize all this, and yet I still believe in the myth of direct giving.  It has nothing to do with the administrative reality of direct giving, but everything to do with the relationship that it creates.  I know our sponsored children, I care for them, they are part of my life.  I hear about their families, I see their writing improve, I send them pictures of our little life when I remember.  Our family feels connected to them, and their societies by extension.  We have extended our family to India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Kenya, the Philippines, and Uruguay thanks to our sponsored children.  It's solidified our idea of our family as that of the global family. 

That's the beauty of humans, in my humble estimation.  We have the capacity for logic, and we have the capacity to utterly ignore logic when necessary.  Sometimes we ignore more logic than we need to, but we sometimes get it right, too.  The arts would not exist but for our ability to ignore logic, and what is compassion if not the art of loving?  It's this ability to put aside logic that makes my faith in humanity continue.  As an ecologist, I have a serious dislike (read- deep seated hatred) of invasive species, and humans are the most invasive species yet to evolve. 

This leaves me in quite a quandary.  I believe in diversity, but humans really don't contribute to biological diversity, and in fact destroy much of it.  Life on this planet would be better for so many organisms if humans were to disappear, but out disappearance would decrease biodiversity by a small degree, but cultural diversity by a vast magnitude.  So I fear, as much as I disagree typically with control, it is control or mitigation that must occur in the case of Homo sapiens instead of eradication.  We can not get rid of ourselves or all the beauty that we can create will be gone with us, but for the sake of all other life, it is our prerogative to lessen our impact as much as possible.

Now back to your regularly scheduled mental wanderings.

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.

Ecological Philosophizing

Purpose - the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc. or an intended or desired result;end;aim;goal

Role - proper or customary function: the teacher's role in society.

Worth - usefulness or importance, as to the world, to a person, or for a purpose: Your worth to the world is inestimable or value, as in money.

Humans have this need to assign these values to things, and we often do so unthinkingly. Far too often, these three words are used interchangeably, when in fact they all have subtly different meanings and implications. Whether we talk about an organism, another person, a job, or an item, we make decisions about them based on their purpose, role, and worth.

Take, for example, a person. In most cases, we allow a person's purpose to be self-ascribed because their purpose is their reason for existence. Only an individual knows or has a feeling about why they exist, although we may joke that a certain person's purpose is to annoy or something similar. There's a certain thought process and evaluation behind a purpose. A person's role (or roles) are defined by themselves and society. A person can be a parent, child, sibling, worker, boss, volunteer, whatever. It's what they *do* in their life, and sometimes gives insight to their purpose. A cleric has the purpose of living for their deity, and expresses that by joining the clergy. Another might have the purpose of helping others, and so becomes a doctor or social worker. A person's worth is a tricky matter, possibly the trickiest of all. There is their inherent worth as a human, for which many philosophers have tried to ascribe a dollar value, since (especially in the US) we measure worth with monetary units. There is the added value they bring to society, in the form of earnings, consumption, savings, and investment. All of those are pretty straight forward. And then there is one's worth in relationships- as a friend, mentor, parent, partner, etc. Again, difficult to quantify.

Inanimate objects are easy to evaluate using these criteria. We humans ascribe the purpose for which they were designed, the role they will play, and their worth. There is a creator, or re-creator in the case of re-purposed goods, that assigns the values of these various traits.

But what about ecosystems and non-human organisms? An ecosystem can't think as it's not a single organism, so it can't self-ascribe a purpose, leaving the other option to let a creator ascribe the ecosystem's purpose. But who or what is the creator of an ecosystem? Ecologically speaking, the "creator" of an ecosystem is a function of the environment and the communities within that ecosystem. Here I feel I should point out that I am speaking from a scientific-philosophical approach, not a theological-philosophical approach because proof of an ultimate Creator is scientifically impossible- there is no test to prove or disprove one's existence- and thus it's a matter of faith, which varies from person to person and is not objective. The role of an ecosystem can be ascribed be humans, as roles can be defined by not just the item to which the role refers, but others whom share a relationship with said thing, and humans most definitely share many deep relationships with ecosystems. Worth is still difficult to ascribe, as it is partly subjective, and difficult to quantify the many areas in which an ecosystem has worth (ecological services, recreation, aesthetics, etc.).

On to other non-human organisms. They are living, and may have the sentience to ascribe their own purpose, but would have no way with which to communicate said purpose to us. Not to mention the fact that we, as not-their-creators (except in the case of GMO's) and as not the organism, don't have the right to ascribe a purpose to another organism. The argument that an organism's "purpose" is their place in the food web is a fallacy of logic, as an organism evolves in the direction of maximum fitness. This means that organisms evolve away from predation in most cases, and would be evolving away from their "purpose" if food chain position were a true purpose. An organism's place in the food chain, can however be considered a role, as roles are not just self-ascribing but also circumscribed by others, and those roles may or may not be something that we desire (consider the worker in a fast food service trying to pay their way through college to become a nurse, e.g.). An organism's worth, as with all worth, is difficult to quantify and hard to assess.

Thus, when we consider endangered species protections, to which organisms are they granted, the protection of ecosystems and the environment, and other ecological quandaries, "purpose" should rarely, if ever, enter the equation, although role and worth are definitely things to consider.

So what's the purpose to this post? I, as the creator of said post, have ascribed it the purpose of "productive waste of time." Cheerio!

The Battle of Plum Creek Park

The Kent Parks and Recreation Department, along with the City Engineer's office held a community meeting last week about what to do with the stretch of Plum Creek that runs through the parks by the same name. The Record Courier (inaccurately) covered it in this story. Basically, the culvert through which the creek passes under Mogadore Road is in poor condition, and in need of repair. There are four alternatives, ranging from doing nothing to repairing the culvert, removing the dam, and restoring the stream (Alternative 3). Alternative 3 would include minimal cost to the city both short and long term, thanks in part to stimulus money and money for the water improvement that this project would bring about. Also of note is that this dam is one of the few remaining impediments on tributaries of the Cuyahoga River, so removing the dam at this point would help to improve water quality of the Crooked River. You can see the plans in the pictures below, just click on them to see the full size.

"If this project is such a no-brainer, where's the battle?" you might ask. Well, on the other side of the creek from the park. There are a number of houses which lie across the stream from the park right now, and the homeowners have expressed concern about flooding (which will decrease with the improved stream function, but they don't see that), and trespassing on their property. One homeowner apparently has already found a pistol in his back yard, and this is before the improvements (mind you, he admitted it was never reported to the police- me thinks me smells a fish). These same residents would most likely see an increase in their home value thanks to the improved park, but I haven't heard any of them mentioning that. Restoration of the stream should also limit the number of Canada's Geese and mosquitoes there, by restoring some normalcy to the functioning of the stream- both of which are good things for aesthetics- but alas, not being mentioned by the home owners.

My son and I frequent Plum Creek Park, and you can bet we'll be there even more the next couple of weeks (gathering signatures to present to city council in support of Plum Creek Park Alternative 3 while we play, in case you're wondering). There's a great diversity of people that come to the park- all income levels, lots of different cultures, babies up to senior citizens. Not to mention the ball fields as well. If you want to see a great park made even better, and the greater city of Kent benefiting in numerous ways, might I suggest you come check us out at the park? And if you feel like doing something good, feel free to write to your city council member and let them know you support Alternative 3, or let me know and I can provide you with a pre-written letter.





Also, stop by Kitchen Stewardship and see a couple of fun prizes she's giving away.

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.