buck rewild

I was reading up on the internet about rewilding and found out that there are two kinds of rewilding proposals.

the lesser of the two is to simply re-input animals and species that were native to a habitat, for instance wolves who were hutned to near extinction and now live in wildlife preserves, but not the wild.

The other kind of rewilding is more radical (hooray) and that is to put megafauna (large animals) in habitats similar to their native habitats. For instance, they want to put African elephants and lions in the great plains. Sounds good to me, mostly because i live nowhere near there!

In a related article, i read about how much bears are necessary in teh ecosystems where they live and hunt salmon. Apparently they eat about 1/10 th of the salmon they catch, and when they do eat, they only eat the most fatty portions (gotta hibernate). So what happens is that they deposit lots of nutrients from the water onto the land. Other animals such as small rats, birds and so on then eat the remains, and then you have the insects and fungi that decompose the body, all contributing to the biomass of that particular area.

Countering the pleiosteine argument is when hunters brought the red fox to the australian outback for hunting. Apparently it got loose and is mauling the 'natural' habitat of the outback. So the counter-argument says that we don't know what kind of consequences a non-native animal would have on a habitat. But that's kinda foolish, because the red fox isn't a predatory nor a large animal, and all the pleiostine advocates are talking about putting in large predatory animals . . . so there.

So in this example what you see is that large animals have dis-proportionally large affect on their environment.

organic molecules and big mamals

I was at a training yesterday and there was a SciAm subscription. During my breaks i happened to read it. i picked that one up because it had an article about the nucleotide that might have created life. the article was basically saying that RNA and DNA are higher up on the evolutioanry chart than many think. They argued that there were mor simpler molecules with carbon in them that were probably the precursors of life. It was also interesting because they outlined some broad conditions in which life would have to had occurred. One was that it would have to have happened in some small space where different chemical transactions and transformations turned the same set of chemicals back into themselves (a-b-c-d-a-b-c-e) or branch in different ways (a-b-c-d-e-b-d-e) etc [hard to draw in lines:]. i got a little bored of the article after i realized that i had intuitively known this a bit, or it was a re-hash of what i learned in a great book called microcosmos that i read a few years ago.

the other article i think was a bit more exicting though.
This article talked about repopulating the planet with large predatory animals. Elephants exert a disproportional amount of influence in their ecosystem because when they knock down trees, all sorts of organisms collect around the felled trees and create local ecosystems. It isn't a matter of size though, otters eat three times their body-weight in kelp, thereby regulating thier ecosystem not through mass but quantities consumed.

So, the argument was that before humans took over the planet in the las 50,000 years there was an abundance of large mamals that regulated the environments of all the different continents. So, the arguemt goes that re-introducing these large mamals would then create a massive beneficial effect on ecosystems that are seemingly in balance, but really out of whack. For instance, deer overpopulation.

I liked it for two reasons. The lesser reason is that they mentioned that fake Safari's get about 7 times the visitorship than national parks, and people go to see the big animals, not the flowers. Therefore, there would be more people going to national forests and parks to see the actually native (or closely related) big animals in their own habitat.

The greater reason is that this isn't just conservation, it's radical conservation. Before now, i haven't seen may articles or thoughts about re-creating the balanced ecosystem, most of the stuff that i've read was about stopping pollution and preventing ecological degradation. So now these 'conservationists' are going on the aggressive, which i applaud. Now there are proposals about how to actually re-balance the ecosystem first, and have humans cope with it instead of how to move humans somewhere and have the ecosystem follow its lead.

[the article was called Restoring America's Big Wild Animals]

google search word: rewilding

Superhero to consult: Captain Planet!

Human Achievement

So i picked up the book Human Achievement by Charles Murray. . . So far, it's a pretty good book. Basically he's statistically analyzing references to people in the arts and sciences to seek their eminence and excellence. It's a really intriguing read for two reasons, first it tells you just why eminent people are eminent (well, kinda) and second it has you evaluate your own notions of judging excellence.

For instance, i know little about European classical music, so i can't really argue about it. So the book has me wondering if when i listen to European classical music whether i'd agree with the experts. So far i do like bach and mozart, so that has me have a grudging agreement with the 'eurpoean classical music aficianados'. Why grudging? because i'd like to say that they dont' know what they're talking about if i ever heard them say that they can't get into hip-hop.

anyhoo, I wanted to read the book a long time ago but for more retributative reasons (is that a word?). I wanted to see how much of a fool this guy is. This is the same guy that came out with the book The Bell Curve a while back. And amidst all the hype and counter-racism and racism claims and all, i've always wondered about his sampling methods. At least in this book he kinda skirted some of the issue of Eurocentrism by [get this] only counting books by people from different cultures! For instance, to judge the relative merit of English literature, he only included the books of non-english-speaking writers!. So there's a one-up for anyone who's been mentioned across a language barrier.

I'm only a bit through the book, but the prefacing and hedging and explaining before we get down to the get down is rather exciting. And apparently he has lots of explanation of his sampling and statistical methods, which i'm also curious about . . . who cares about facts, i care about how you come to know a fact.

update on google maps

Yo! google maps just did the greatest thing ever! It allows you to drag and drop what route you want to take! Since i take back-roads to places when i'm working, i'd always want to get google to give me directions taking bootleg routes.

Hooray for google!

innundation and movie reviews

hey. i'm in the process of getting dsl at home, but it's not going well because the phone company's repair line was down for repairs!!! (is that satire?).

But. . . when i'm up and running, i'll be posting to these various blogs much more frequently.

###
I saw "the last king of scotland" last night. it took me two nights to watch it. It was a good movie, but i don't know why the man was like that. I think Forest Whitaker got the oscar for the role. So, in the last decade we've had oscars for black people playing a rogue maniacal cop, a poor slut in love with a death row inmate, an unwed mother and a tyrranical African buffoon ruler. And who said there wasn't progress on the big screen?

Q&A: denzel, halle, jennifer and forest for the people who played those roles.

####
i turned thirty this past weekend. Best birthday since the real one.

side comment on the last thing

so inevitably everyone near the conversation had to weigh-in on whether they were of the 'caliber' of J&J. I said that my family is of the 'caliber' of J&J but wasn't in it. The guy automatically assumed because of lack of money. I laughed at him. It wasn't on account of money. My family (specifically paternal family) is of the caliber of J&J, but it seems that my family is way too individualistic to join some social club to validate themselves.

I was also thinking that i was "above" J&J because J&J is so recent. My paternal family is traced back to pre 1800's and have been doing substantive things every generation since then. So my attitude toward Jack & Jill, Frats and Sororities is that since they were founded in the early 1900's, that they're a function of new money trying to validate themselves.

Taking that one step further, i wouldn't be surprised that if you looked at the rolls of the Skull-and-Bones (even the early inceptors) or other fraternities and sorrorities, you'll find that they were 'new money' (within two generations) and perhaps created these organizations to validate themselves in the face of the snobbery of older money.

I was talking to my dad a few years back and said that when i get rich i'm going to have a bumper sticker that read "old guard, new money"


he, he, like i'd want to be in J&J! New breeds!

class conscious in NYC

I was in NYC visiting my wonderful girlfriend and we went to a great Caribbean spot called “Negrill” somewhere around 4^th and bleeker or something. I never know where I am when I’m down there . . . I think it’s the West Village.

So we were sitting next to a table of college-educated folk, two guys and a girl. And it might have been one of their first times out together because they were talking about deep stuff . . . Christianity, religion, etc. . . but they were talking about it like they were just voicing their opinions to each other for the first time.

Now, when I’m in public, I have a compulsion to talk to people. That compulsion both irritates and amuses my girlfriend. So I held my tongue in check and got back to the conversation at our table. Did I mention that her cousin and her boyfriend were in town for the day also?

Later in their conversation I heard them talking about Jack and Jill . . . not the Ice cream, the social organization. What social organization? Well, Jack and Jill, as I understand it, was a social organization created by affluent blacks near the beginning of the 1900’s to socialize their kids and teach the kids black history . . . take them on trips etc. As of late, J&J has garnered a reputation for being elitist. And that was the point of the young man sitting next to me. The funny thing was, what seemed like his girlfriend/significant other was actually in J&J and seemed uncomfortable defending her organization.

That’s where I stepped in . . .

And when things got interesting of course . . .

My big mouth (enter stage left)

So I said to them “I’ve been trying to hold my tongue and not listen, but I want to say something” and they agreed to let me in the conversation (at the same time I could feel my girlfriend roll her eyes towards her cerebellum). Suckers!!! Anyhoo . . .

The point of the guy next to me was that J&J shouldn’t be so exclusive and they need to be more inclusive and contribute more to the black community. I was thinking that that’s all fine, well and good, but terrible!

My perspective/position in the conversation was that there was nothing that ‘obligated’ J&J members, either as a collective or as individuals, to give back to “the community”. My problem with this is that everybody says this, but nobody can tell me “why”. What “why”? The why people ‘have’ to give back? Inside of that ‘have’ lay the division between many people.

So, of course the topic turned to Oprah and her billions. This guy said that Oprah was obligated to give back. I asked to whom and why? He started talking about the ‘community’ again and couldn’t tell me why she should give back. My problem with the ‘why’ anyone ‘should’ give back moreso lay in that people assume that the ‘should’ is a fact of nature, and not an individual perspective about things.

My counter argument was that no people can lay claim to the fruits of Oprah’s labor. She doesn’t have to give back based on some abstract idealized community (or the aim toward thereof). She doesn’t have to give to anyone or anything. She made it, she can do with it what she pleases. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that her or anyone being generous is a bad thing. My position is the assumption of obligation and duty constrict the true nature of giving. If someone asks for a lollipop and you give it to them, is it a gift or a fulfilled request?

Ask any woman what she would like more: a man to give her a gift out of his own generosity, or a man giving her a gift because she asked for it. I’m sure it would be close to unanimous that the woman would choose the giving out of the pleasure of giving, not to fulfill a request. So I’m all for generosity, but only if it’s initiated on the part of the donor, not on the part of the recipient.

The problem with my notion isn’t that it’s idealized, the problem is that there are a lot of seemingly needy people asking for, looking for and wanting gifts that they neither earn nor deserve. So what happens? People who think like me, and who are rich, are turned off of giving because their gifts aren’t received as gifts, they’re received as someone’s just due. And why would I give you something if you think you deserve it?

What’s this got to do with J&J? Well, I tore into his notion that J&J should do something for ‘the community’ (whatever that means) on the basis that the organization wasn’t designed to give to the community, it was designed to socialize affluent blacks during segregation . . . now it’s mission may be called into question due to the brave individuals who populated the civil rights movement . . . but to outright say that J&J is ‘wrong’ for not doing it is, well, wrong!

The ‘wrongess’ that I’m pointing to is the assumption that that one person’s judgment ‘is’ the only judgment is wrong. What’s wrong about that is that people go around thinking that their opinions and perceptions are a fabric of reality instead of a figment of their individual (or collective/learned) imagination. And then they apply these thoughts and imaginative acts to things and talk to other people as if those figments are reality . . . and get mad when other people don’t agree with them.

In the conversation, I asked him “what drives the ‘have to’ in them having to give back? Who says?” And he replied “I do.” That’s when I celebrated. I wasn’t trying to say that the obligation and duty notion is inherently wrong, the point that I was trying to make was that the obligation and duty notion is a function of a person’s beliefs (specifically his) and not a function of reality itself.

Through the rest of the conversation I tried to emphasize personal contribution in lieu of criticizing others. Why? Because it’s easy to take pot-shots at people from the outside, but much harder to be the one actually contributing to the community. And contributing can be being a sports coach, volunteering at your local YMCA, it doesn’t even have to be some seemingly noble cause or gesture like helping out the NAACP (bleh) or a progressive organization. Any activity that fosters cooperation and competition in a healthy manner is fabulous. And I think the world would be better served if we started doing such things instead of complaining about people and things to which we have no connection . . . (he said that his criticism of Oprah was productive, and I asked “oh really, when is your next meeting with her?)