If Spock Were More Blunt.

I've been told that I have a Spock-like ability to turn off my emotions. Some long-time friends say that I appear to be a "black widow but, secretly I'm a delicate butterfly". I think that may be closer to the truth than any other analogy. I compartmentalize... I have emotions but they are buried pretty deep - likely partly due to defense mechanisms - and I am not comfortable with emotions (mine or anyone else's).

The problem is that I've been broken and I developed into the person I am as a broken object. Yes.  Object.  So, I don't mean broken like "oh he broke up with me and my wee little heart hurts"... I mean broken like "fuck it all and I can't tell you how little of a rat's ass I give about me, you, or anything else" even if I didn't realize it was happening at that time. Sadly, I had the broken moment many, many moons ago. In the following 35 years or so I grew up. From time to time, I would meet someone that would make me want to feel. When that happened - when I met someone I wanted to feel for - my dumb ass (who is emotionally stunted from lack of emotional development) would dive in head first, arms and legs going as fast as they could to get from the shore of "unemotion" to the gorgeous beach of "love/feelings" on the other side. I realize that, logically, this may freak people out (I believe that 'normally emotional people' have some ability to pace themselves with relationship-based feelings) or that I took that plunge before I objectively analyzed the probable outcomes. It's with no small sense of irony that I began to understand my early-adopted trait was sort of self-destructive...

...not in the "emotions are healthy and one should learn to express and cope with them way".

No, quite the opposite.  The self-destructive aspects don't come from a lack of emotion, they come from those times when I try to actually have normal emotions.  I'm not built for it.  I don't know how to use them, how to moderate them, or when they are beneficial.  As a result, I find myself in situations where I've told myself it's acceptable to feel only to find out I willingly put myself in a dangerous place. 

I have learned the extent of my ability over the past couple of years - and I'd say that extent is scary to the average person.  The question is, now that I've realized that and understand the implications of both my own prior self-destructive willingness to allow emotions and the extent of my ability to flip the switch and turn emotions off... what do I do?  I believe this decision will have long-term and very widespread ramifications.

But perhaps an equally important question is: logically, it is a good idea to decide what to do when I'm in a "switch is currently in off position" mindset?  I'm trying to remain objective - to not let the "off" persuade or lull my objectivity - but this is difficult.  I've tried to care over the past decade and understanding that "people will always hurt you or let you down" is as solid a truth as "the only things that are certain are death and taxation".  Actually, it may be as solid as the laws of thermodynamics.  Knowing that doesn't make objectivity easy because it negates the desire to place value on the 'good feelings'.  It influences the predilection to identify that 'good feelings' are just as temporary as any other type of feelings... so giving value to 'good feelings' means I must also give value to neutrality and negativity and - the biggest bastard of them all - pain.

Yeah, there's logic for ya: throw weights on those and tell me what the objective smart choice is... I bet you'll come to the same conclusion that I'm coming to.

(I should likely note here that pets are immune to this ability by choice - I will allow emotion with my chosen because they are - other than when they die - incapable of hurting me emotionally.) 

Once upon a time in a land far, far away...

Ever get to the point where you just don't care about things anymore?  Where you throw your hands into the air, drop a few F-bombs, and make a conscious decision to walk away?  I've been at that point since July 2014 in relation to what my education is for...  

I honestly only kept working on my degree because I was almost there and it’s simply stupid to throw it away after going this far.  I resigned myself to being educated in a field that I loathed, where the majority of people I encountered made me pine away for days of… what? Retail management in the holiday season?  Public flogging?  I don’t think that is even painful enough to compare.  Amazingly, after all that time, something has finally happened to curb my fury, to assuage my disappointment in "the field".   

I don’t want to give names or anything… but I can say it happened in Arizona because of Arizona people and British Columbia/Alberta people.  I met person after person who made me realize that my world isn’t the same everywhere… that maybe I’m just the anti-biologist who does love the LE elements more?  It was rejuvenating… refreshing… remarkable.  If I could think of another “re” compliment, I would, trust me!  I don't want to start popping out everyone's name, but SW, KVD, DD, RO, JK, JJ, KO, TP, JC.... yah, my perception has been altered and my world enlightened!

Now I just have to figure out how to incorporate that knowledge into my real world.  Better baffled than beaten, I suppose. 

Paradise Truly Lost: The Inescapable Fate of Humanity and Our Complete Lack of Concern

We’re all used to the cliché of “you reap what you sow”.  In our case, as humans, we have quite literally discovered that what we reap is agriculture and technological advancement to build an incredible civilization and what we have sown is a booming human population, degraded soil, water depletion and more.  

Humans have an ironically undeniable ability to live in a state of denial.  Since the “discovery” of agriculture, we have grown as a species and now find ourselves in a state of peril.  The true poetic irony is that, as a species, we are capable of amazingly intellectual and technological feats; however, the power of human denial allows us to be more ostrich-like in our perception of the world around us.  We have undeniable proof that we are eating, drinking, breeding, and ‘advancing’ our species into oblivion.  Yet we stand fast to the proverb of “what world are we leaving for our children”?  Well, my fellow humans, we have passed the time when we look at what we are leaving behind for others to deal with and have incurred the moment when we realize we are those axiomatic children to whom the world’s fate has been left. 

I was introduced to a term recently: apocaloptimist.  This is, quite literally, the portion of our species that is looking forward to an apocalypse.  While there is no small amount of casual fun in speculating the when it will occur, where it will start, and how it will develop (ranging from asteroids from the heavens to zombies running rampant across the landscape) the facts are that it’s already begun.  At this point many people stop reading because this appears to be yet another extremist prophecy about the future.  But what if you humor me for a moment and simply continue to read on? 

We’re living in a world of conundrums, for starters.  It’s a world rife with denial-based paradox. Let us look at the indisputable facts:

• The human species has surpassed the sustainable population based on what our planet can continue to support.
• Non-human species are going extinct at an indescribable and incomprehensible rate.
• Our glaciers are retreating at – in some places – a rate that is almost visible to the naked eye.
• Our world is showing signs of massive water depletion and soil degradation. 
• The climate is becoming erratic with higher temperature highs, lower lows, and ever-growing amazing storms. 

Now let us look at the paradox we provide:

• We continue to breed because we, as individuals, do not have the right to tell other individuals that they do not have the right to breed even if they breeding is a huge part of the problem (talk about oxymoron for the ages?!). 
• We nod apologetically that yet another species has been added to the “extinct” list yet bawl fitfully when our ‘technological’ advance or traditional needs may be halted to save any of those species.
• We look at glaciers and say “well, it’s not like we haven’t had major melts before… it’s only natural”.
• We dig deeper wells and further deplete fossil-era aquifers or export more foods or increase livestock productions which further degrade soils that already can’t sustain crops.
• We look only at local temperatures and continue to dispute any evidence that may point to climate change and global warming…. Preferring to argue about the science rather than use that energy to look for alternate fuels. 

Again, I cite the amazing ability for humans to live in a constant state of denial.  These are “someone else’s problems”.  These are things “the normal person is incapable of changing”.  We use these crutches to continue to go about our normal day and pretend that there is nothing wrong with our world.  Out of sight, out of mind, right?  One of the biggest questions that I have is not how to right these wrongs.  It will take far greater minds than mine to meet that challenge.  The question I have is how to instill a sense of personal accountability to individuals.  How do we incite the changes that are needed?  How do we resist the urge to be hypocrites and call this “someone else’s problems”? 

Here is another interesting fact:

• When the world hits a food shortage in the near future because of a climax of environmental and cultural factors and the epic populations of China need to be fed… it’s their problem and not ours right?  I mean, we live in one of the most fertile countries in the world, so the Americas will be fine, right?  Not exactly.  China owns a huge chunk the United States.  What I mean by that is that China, due to our economic structure and the volume of our national debt, has a large say in what we can and cannot do when it comes to our food exports.  So, when China’s food production plummets, we will be obligated to feed their burgeoning population.  My point is, we can’t keep thinking that Americans will somehow be exempt from the problems that are geographically distant from us.  The hard facts are that we are not above the future of the world.  We – one of the most egotistical civilizations the world has ever seen – will suffer the fate of the rest of the world because, more than being Americans… we are Earthlings.  We need to get a grip on reality that it is what it is.

Perhaps we need to realize that we (as a species) have, honestly, reaped what we (as individuals) will now sow.  The optimists and scientists and activists of our world continue to look for ways to fix our problems, but my question is should we? 

Between medical advances and the fact that many cultures breed even knowing they can’t provide for their young (which ironically causes more breeding to improve success rates) we have created another conundrum.  We are having more children, we are living longer, and thereby we are putting even more strain on our little biosphere to provide for us.  The humanitarian leagues feed the starving and medicate the sick; in developed countries there are emerging health care regulations and further advances providing a “long and prosperous” life for more and more people.  We do this for the good of our species, yet we do so to the detriment of our species.  Being rather unique in our emotional attachment for those we care about, we all have vested interest in keeping our parents and offspring and siblings alive.  This is human nature.  To be clear, this is my nature as well.  Yet the logical part of me screams that the selfish emotional impulses to keep my family healthy and prosperous add incremental stress to my world, to our species, and to our civilization.  Enter the term: apolcaloptimist. 

Not to stand on a corner desperately grasping a billboard, but the end is near.  It doesn’t take a doctorate to know that, if you have 1 apple, you can’t feed 2 people.  Sharing of the apple merely prolongs life momentarily and, in the end, both lose rather than just one of the two.  There will be casualties in this ecological war.  Scientists and activists wish to stop it.  Yet, perhaps luckily, the general population chooses to ignore it – further exacerbating the demise of our civilization.  So when that inevitable collapse happens, in our lifetime and not that of our children’s children, nature will fall back on what the biological world calls “natural selection”.  This, ineptly summarized, will be the survival of the fittest.  The poetic irony is that this collapse and massive die-off of our species will, to a large degree, correct the wrongs that we (all of us, as a species) have set into motion. 

The population will be decimated.
Carbon emissions will virtually cease. 
Water use will be nullified. 
Abuse of our soils for agriculture will go back to individual family-unit needs.
Non-human species will regain habitat and no longer face exploitation and abuse.

Essentially, this global collapse of the world as we know it will right the wrongs.  And if there is one thing that our planet has shown us, on a geological timescale, it is that nature will heal and reclaim what is necessary.

As an aside, survival of the fittest isn’t necessarily referring to the super strong in physique (after all, they take more to feed and use more energy) or even the most intellectual (who may often be lost to the simpler and more physically demanding and nature-savvy aspects of survival)… but to those who understand the true art of survival.  The over-zealous armed-to-the-gills extremists will have a benefit of protection.  The outdoor savvy will have the benefit of environmental manipulation. 
So the question I pose is: on a planetary scale, do I fight for what sustains our species with our current understanding of civilization?  Or is the smarter ideal actually the opposite? 

So who am I to spout these opinions?  Am I some amazing scholar who has done decades of research?  No.  Am I some intellectual giant who easily comprehends all of the data collected that supports all of the above theories?  Nope.  (For the record, before you dismiss something stating “it’s only a theory” remember that theories are the basis of the natural world as we understand it… for example, plate tectonics and such trivial things as gravity* are ‘merely a theory’.) Ok, so surely I’m some well-degreed anthropology major who understands civilizations or ecologists or environmentalist or something, right?  No.  What I am is the average girl who lives in the average community and has an average job.  I’m smart enough to realize a few things that are important here such as:

• I am somewhat of a hypocrite when it comes to environmentalism as I don’t recycle enough, don’t drive the most fuel-efficient car (and I have a car, for that matter!), use an air conditioner, am guilty of such negligent water abuse as – say – doing dishes or laundry, etc etc etc.
• I manage to live my ‘normal, mundane’ life without a constant sense of turmoil on the future of our planet (my own little piece of that human power of denial). 
• I plan for the future with 401ks and the like. 
• I virtually loathe the species that I am a part of, though I love specific members of that species.
• Like most humans, I have a selfish, self-righteous sense of egocentric ideology. 

So what I’m saying here… is that I’m just like you.  I’m a normal “Joe”.  What I’m insinuating is that any normal Joe can actually understand the notions above.  The question that I pose to you – and to myself – is what (if anything) do we do about the current state of our biosphere?  What power do we – the simple inhabitants of our world – have over the future of it?  Are we past the point of saving anything?  The powers that we have allowed to dictate the “rules of engagement” in this “ecological war” don’t listen to us… we, as individuals, are generally not willing to make the sacrifices that we have to make.  As a species we are unwilling to put restraints on our proliferating population through ‘forced’ means.  So is it too late?  Is any effort futile?  Is our path set and undeniable?  Who has the proverbial balls to make a move?  Who has what it takes to get results? 

It’s not me.

It’s, quite likely, not you. 

For that matter, it’s not even us… because you and I make 2… and 2 against billions doesn’t really stand a chance.

So I guess it’s time to be the crazy Noah of our period of history.  Why?  Because I’m crazy? Because I’ve had a psychological break from reality?  Maybe.  I mean, the human mind is evolutionarily programmed to disregard enormous stressors that are outside of our control.  It’s a survival mechanism from the beginning of our species that allows us to completely disregard all of the horrific things that can happen on any given day and treat them with complete indifference. 

So am I nuts?  Quite the opposite, really. I‘m logical.  Because when the proverbial brown-and-stinky hits the oscillating mechanism, I don’t want to be one of the billions who perish.  Why? Because I’m egotistical and self-centered just like most of the rest of my species… I thought we already covered that?  

*Just to make sure we’re clear, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation describes how “Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and you, the sun and Mars, etc…  but it does not tell us why it happens.  The why it happens is a different story, and for that it’s actually likely more accurate to use Einstein’s General Relativity theory. 

 

Hazardous Road Conditions Ahead

There’s a song from a couple decades ago that says “life is a highway”. Quite catchy, back in the day; but today, as I hit one of those proverbial ‘milestone’ birthdays, I can’t help but recognize the truth behind that simple statement. Birthdays are made just for this, to provide a moment of reflection on where life has been, where you are now, and what may lie ahead on this road we all travel. The relevance between age and a highway is sort of like the mile markers that we pass with some regularity as we travel. The number on the sign – or in this case, the number of your age – is a simple means of tracking the distance that we’ve traveled. It doesn’t tell us anything about the construction zones we’ve dealt with or sometimes had to detour around, the accidents that either caused us pause or (hopefully with far less frequency) been involved in. The mile markers don’t tell us what exit ramps we’ve passed, the forks that we’ve chosen, and they most certainly don’t say anything about the things we have seen. The journey – whether on a road or through our lives – is about the things that we have seen, the experiences that have occurred, the conversations we have had along the way. When people say that age is only of mild relevance, this is why that logic prevails. A mile marker only tells you where you are at the moment; it explains nothing about what came before it, what comes after it. There is no “counting down” to where the highway ends because, in all honesty, it never really does. Sure, I may take an exit before someone else; while the mile markers may all tell us how far we have travelled, they say nothing about the distance remaining.

PS - thanks to everyone who wished me a happy 40th!

Cut like a knife...

Words.

Seemingly innocuous waves of sound that travel in and on the air. 

Light as the air itself and invisible to the eye … but in distinct contrast to the light air that carries them, words can be some of the heaviest things to bear.  I spent some time this morning talking to a friend about how badly words can mar a relationship and scar your emotional well-being… about how a moment of misdirected anger can forever alter the landscape of a relationship. 

Is it wrong that an apology can’t be accepted and then the hurt is just …erased? 

Is it wrong to think we can apologize and it erases the hurt?

I’m not sure. 

What I do know is that misdirected words of anger or stress or hurt are wounding – sometimes mortally so, in a proverbial sense – because they breach (and can destroy) a fragile sense of safety we have in our relationships.  I say fragile because, even in the strongest of relationships, the trust we instill in someone can be quite easily broken and devastated beyond repair.  We can patch things… we can apply salves and band-aids…  but a scar always remains and it never completely heals. 

A sliver of doubt...

...of mistrust...

...of hurt everpresent to remind you that once you were an emotional whipping post...

...once you were kicked just because you were an easy target...

...that once you were lashed out on for no other reason than "you were there".

How do you accept an apology that is give so far after the fact? How when, prior to the apology, you were beaten down further by misconstrued facts, things taken out of context, and flat out insults simply to bolster the fact that you obviously deserve the abuse?

So which is the more selfish mentality… the offending party being upset we can’t simply accept an apology and forget the event?  …or the offended party who can’t seem to forget?  I’m not sure.  I know that I strive to not be the former; however, that doesn’t seem to negate the fact that I am the latter.

Save a Shelter Dog... maybe save a little more than you expected :) Nic

Save shelter dogs.  I promise, the joy of knowing you saved their life adds to the experience of being the human of a Dog.

...whomever said "diamonds are a girls' best friend" never met me and my dogs.  ~Nic.

Bandit McKaye - Anatolian Shepherd c/o a mutual effort from Tennessee's Big Fluffy Dog Rescue and National Anatolian Shepherd Rescue Network... Saved from death in February 2011.   Support shelter dogs and those who offer amnesty to the ones on death row.

A New Appreciation of Veteran's Day

I have always been a Patriot. When I was a little girl, I chose the New England Patriots as my favorite team simply because I like anything that symbolizes patriotism. My great grandfather was a veteran of WWI. My grandfather a veteran of WWII. My uncle a veteran of Vietnam. My dad is retired Air National Guard. My uncle is retired US Navy. My cousin is active Navy. I come from a long line of patriots and my love of my country and the foundations that we were built on (regardless of how skewed they have become) runs very deeply, indeed. Its why I volunteered to try to bring smiles to Wounded Warriors at the recent event I blogged about. You know, I was supposed to go in the Army... was enlisted but became pregnant a couple months prior to basic training with my son, Dakota.

Now, 21 years later, I have a new appreciation for Veteran's Day... while I missed my opportunity to serve my country because I got pregnant with my son, this year I include my son in those thanks. Where I stumbled, he has stood tall. My pride in my son's commitment and accomplishment greatly outweigh my fears and longing to see him. My son... the submariner.

Nicotye and her Son, Kota

When I post my "thank you" to vets and current military staff on social media, I have a deeper appreciation for the words I say. Too often we regurgitate sentiments from habit, no longer feeling the depth and appreciation for what the words mean. How often do you hang up a phone and, just prior to, say "I love you" as more of a closing statement than a deep and emotional sentiment? How often have I said "Happy Thanksgiving - I am thankful for my family and friends" without taking the time to really feel that appreciation? I admit that I have, in the past, often said (on Veteran's Day or anytime I see military personnel walking through an airport or something) "Thank you for your service" without really taking a moment to feel the depth of their commitment and the sacrifice that they have undertaken to benefit America.

So today, being my first Veteran's Day where I honor all of my relatives who have served, the military persons I may not ever know, and my son... today I feel the appropriate amount of gratitude and sacrifice and commitment and pride that I should always feel when I thank someone for their service. If the only sacrifice I can give to my country is through the geographic distance and frequent lapses in communication that I now have by supporting my son's decision to serve is the hardest sacrifice I have to make, I will take that sacrifice willingly over and over again...

...being a Patriot doesn't mean sitting on my laurels and taking solace in the fact that I know my Pledge and my Anthem and respect my colors... being a Patriot means you have the bravery to give what others may not be willing to give. If I could be there with my son, I would be. If I am ever needed, I will go (regardless that I'm "too old")... and no matter how I feel about whatever political environment that may be around, I will ALWAYS be a Patriot.

The Azure World

Roatan Islands, Honduras.  Everything about the name of this destination screams “NOT FOR ME”… not for the girl who loves mountains instead of seas, who loves crisp cold over oppressive heat.  Regardless of where I travel during my wanderlust, this has always (and will always) be my personal truth.  But that doesn’t mean that, on a very rare occasion, I can’t find myself enthralled by the antithesis of my heart’s desires, right? 

One of the photos I took at Lam'anai ruins.

I visited Roatan after having already made stops in Cozumel and Belize.  Belize will always have a soft spot for the anthropological archaeologist in me… but aside from their spectacular Mayan ruins, I think they are just like every other third world country.  I’ve heard my brother and dad rave about the scuba in Belize, but I don’t scuba (nor will I take my limited time there for snorkeling when I have so many ruins to explore!).  So, the morning I walked out on the deck and my eyes experienced Roatan, I have to admit I was shocked immediately by the splendor of the rugged and lush hills.  The water between myself and the island was that specific shade of blue that only the Caribe waters seems to create.  If you haven’t seen the Caribbean, I always use the word “azure” to describe it. While “azure” may simply mean "blue" in Spanish… it’s beyond that.  The sultry yet somehow lazy feel of the word on my tongue (Ahz-zhuer) somehow express the devastating yet comfortable shade that I only seem to find here.  Roatan was surrounded by azure waters accented by the crisper, lighter shades indicative of reefs.  Considering I usually went into ports with a sense of “ugh, how ugly” and “welp, at least it’s just a few hours here then back on the boat!”, this was a dramatic change… I was anxious to get off the boat, don snorkeling gear and get in that water.

We (a group of 20 or so) hopped on the deluxe catamaran known as the Jolly Roger and motored a few miles up the coast to a specific stretch of reef.  Experienced snorkelers (or those who were either great swimmers or arrogantly confident that they had no need of a life vest) were allowed to don our gear and hop into the water with a guide to show us to some pretty cool areas of the reef.  I bet you’ve already guessed, but I’m one of those cocky, arrogantly confident types that didn’t want to feel hindered by a life vest.  I have been snorkeling once or twice and I admit that, while I have a wretched fear of the ocean (ok,… of sharks)… I’m also one natural helluva swimmer…. so screw the PFD! (Err… that’s ‘personal floatation device’… a way cooler way of saying life vest.) 

Stoplight Parrotfish c/o RyanPhotographic.com

I hopped in the water and adjusted the bikini, meandering out of the way as I waited on M to jump in.  After he did, he pretty much told me to go on ahead as he adjusted and did his thing.  After a quick 10 yard swim, the reef life below me burst into view flaunting vivid colors of reefs and fishes in varied shapes and sizes.  I made sure I stayed in front of my group (never fun to take a fin to the head!) but kept an eye on where our guide went.  Purple giant ‘leaves’ waved lazily  from the sea floor, rainbows of fishes danced in and out of the reef.  I’d take a deep breath and dive down, going 10… 15… 20 feet down to swim between isles of reef.  I held a starfish who managed to both slither and clamber at the same time as it moved over my hands.  I chased a stoplight parrotfish as we played hide-and-seek from reef to reef.  I gawked in awe at the depth and darkness of the bluff that plunged down at the end of the reef.  I didn’t know it until I got back to the Jolly Roger, but at some point I dove so deep that I managed to give myself a bloody nose and quite painful ear pop which didn’t subside even after I equalized.  When the trip was over,  and no sooner had I been out of the water (blood washed off my face) than I wanted to go back in.  The places I’ve snorkeled were never so wild and free as this… and never in 5’ swells, either (which added to my fun!). 

I fell in love with the island, with the people I met from the island, and with the splendor of snorkeling on their amazing reefs.  While Belize may have equally impressive reefs, I won’t ever find that out (cuz they have SO MANY amazing RUINS!).

Sanctuary

This posting has moved, please view it at: http://wildtn.blogspot.com/2013/11/sanctuary.html 

Melancholy and the art of Distraction

This posting has moved, please view it at: http://wildtn.blogspot.com/2013/11/melancholy-and-art-of-distraction.html 

Please Lose Me in a Hidden World of Enchantment

This posting has moved, please view it at http://wildtn.blogspot.com/2013/11/lost-in-world-of-hidden-enchantment.html 

"They call it a 'Tripod' because..."

This posting has moved, please view it at: http://wildtn.blogspot.com/2013/11/they-call-it-tripod-because.html 

Where does the onus belong...?

Personal responsibility and accountability…. terms used in so many contexts and catch phrases today.  I suppose you can Google the definitions of those just as well as I; because I won’t provide them for you this time.  I gripe often about our lack of personal accountability (“our” meaning people in general including myself).  Usually, I'm on a total rant-fest about the whole topic... but I’m thinking of aspects of my responsibility and accountability in a different context this time. 

...specifically, surrounding the (my) average blog. 

I have never relied on anyone for validation of what I may or may not post

Nicotye

because my blogging is merely my perception of my world and written more for a sense of “me” than as 100% rock solid fact.  So when someone proposes that I have misrepresented a specific populace by using too general a term… my immediate first thought is “it’s not my job to teach Joe and Jane Q. Public on the specific nuance of said population.”  The comment didn’t make me angry… but it did spur me to think seriously on if it is or is “not my job to teach or specify…”

I think if I’m going to talk about a population that does have "a few shades" within a general term, maybe it is my responsibility to provide a higher level of specificity rather than simply stating "this generalized population". 

I’m arguing with myself.  Is it my responsibility?  I don’t know.  I mean, I can see where it could be… but on the same side of the token, isn’t the onus to understand the context of something broad up to the reader? 

Regardless,… it is well-meaning and good advice… so if I give it logical consideration (which I take pride in doing before conceding to a decision)… I admit a need to keep it in mind for future posts.  So, on that note, I will make an effort to improve and am sorry if I have misrepresented facts based on generalizations.

Global Warming, Carbon Emissions, Fossil Fuel Use, and Ingenuity?

I had a very windy (i.e. relatively heated) debate with Funkdubie over things learned in my Global Change and Climatology Earth Sciences/Geology course when when we were asked to compile everything we had learned, filtering it into answering the simple question of "should we limit carbon emissions?”  

The majority of the debate with Funkdubie was over the science involved, the lack of long-term (think geologic timescales) data, and (to paraphrase myself) the 'grandiose thinking of humans that we know everything, can fix everything, and are the cause of everything'.  I admit, I may actually have something there.  Maybe we are grandiose?  Regardless, that's a different blog!  

When I look at all of the data that I've discovered during this class (800k years of ice core data analysis, the literal climatic history of Earth, etc) and we look at the options for "global warming" and the underlying questions surrounding global warming... being asked if we should force carbon emission and fossil fuel use limitations now is really quite a loaded question.  All of the data doesn’t give some epiphany of an answer; rather, it just prompts me to sit back and ponder even more questions.  In the end, and I’d never admit this to Funkdubie, he had a valid point that we must consider a more socioeconomic motive – no matter what the science says – which always seems to outweigh other things.  His words that actual ring true are: 

“An artificial regulation of resources doesn’t spur ingenuity like an actual shortage of those same resources.” 

While we are working towards a start to fix the carbon footprint of humanity, the pressure to do so is neither readily economically feasible nor are the means that we have “tinkered with” an end-all resolution/solution.  While I commend that we are beginning the eventual proverbial race for alternatives, our current efforts are likely more of a ‘stretching the muscles’ in preparation for the race that is forthcoming.  While we should continue to encourage carbon-emission-fossil-fuel-use-limits, the sad truth is that until we have no options (due to limited resources making fossil fuel use economically arduous), the true meaning behind “necessity is the mother of invention” will likely not transpire. 

Where did all the giant animals go?

So, the last post we looked at a few incredible giant animals we used to have - giant animals we call "megafauna".  I promised that in my next post we would look a bit more at the theories behind the mass extinction.  (On an unrelated noted, did you know there were like 5 mass extinctions before the origin of man (or at least from the fossil record of the origin of man?!).)  So, let's stop and think about it.

This isn't a new question; it's been posed by all types of persons ranging from virtually no education through topmost scholars.  Theories are as varied as the people asking, ranging from ostensibly far-fetched hypotheses to seemingly "commonsensical" ones.  Some of the proposed theories from scholars include:

• Hyperdisease impacting only certain species
• Comet impact
• Solar radiation
• Overkill
• Blitzkrieg (rapid overkill)
• Sitzkrieg (fire, habitat fragmentation, and introduction of invasive species and diseases)
• “Simple” climate and environmental change

Instead of reallly boring you with full studies on theories, how about I summarize various hypotheses and provide an opinion based on general plausibility from questions or challenges left unanswered by each author.  Trust me, you like this option better because it means I do the hard work and you get the snapshot!  Win-win, eh?!

Extraterrestrial Impact Event

The extraterrestrial impact event theorizes that the onset of the 1,000+ years of Younger Dryas cooling event coincided and the Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions (as well as extinctions of the Clovis people) because of an extraterrestrial (comet) impact (Firestone, 2009).  The author cites a carbon-rich black material (referred to as “black mat”) which can be found immediately covering Clovis kill sites.  Furthermore, the author states that no megafaunal fossil or Clovis artifacts are discovered above (stratified) the black mat.  The composition of the black mat appears to coincide with extraterrestrial components as well as carbon components which allude to a superheated shockwave and high temperature fires.  He points to the Carolina and Great Lakes “craters” as substantiation for impact areas.    You caught that, right?  The Great Lakes are craters.  That right there is going to cause me a lot of research sometime in the near future.

Anyhow, the back mat referenced by the author is seen in various articles and, as such, does seem to play some role in the overall extinction.  In regard to the proposed impact craters: the author argues proof of impact based on shallow "crater pools" in the 15 Carolina Bays as well as elliptical shallow lakes in Georgia, Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico and Texas; the inexplicable depth of the Great Lakes is why he states they were also formed due to some interstellar cause.  He provides ample imagery and ‘impact-related mineral data’ to explain the extraterrestrial-caused formation of the numerous shallow areas and Great Lakes.  In specific regard to the Great Lakes, he agrees that a large comet strike would have left craters but believes these craters were diminished in standard identifiable features.  He believes the comet struck the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which greatly absorbed some of the impact energy.  The impact caused the ice sheet to fail and, upon failure, provide a sudden release of both rushing water and ice ejecta.  Therefore, with circumstances being as they may, there would be no ‘tell tale’ crater but, instead, “a great scar in an otherwise featureless landscape.”  The author further links the formation of the Great Lakes to coincide with the formation of Charity Shoal, a 1km crater in Lake Ontario known to have formed near the time of the theorized Younger Dryas impact.   The author uses an image with an overlaid line to express that 3 of the 4 deepest areas of the Lakes are in a line similar to crater ‘chains’ previously observed on the Earth, moon, and Jupiter after the Shoemaker-Levy comet impact.   

While many of the data appear solid, my questions on this theory are many.  If the Pleistocene extinction - which included both highly adaptable people and animal species - was caused by an extraterrestrial impact, why were only select species eradicated?  Furthermore, the explanation may somehow work into the North American extinction event, but how does this tie into extinctions on other continents like Australia? Unfortunately for the author, other scholars also questioned the theory.  Firestone’s original journal entry apparently appeared in a National Academy of Science journal wherein his collection methods and theory garnered a rebuttal by Haynes, Jr. et al.   While the authors of the refutation do not negate the potential of an impact, the evidence was found to be lacking (and I'm pretty much in agreement).  The future article by Firestone in the Journal of Cosmology is, for all intents, the author’s second effort to provide substantiation for his impact-caused allegation for extinction.

The Super-Sized Solar Proton Event

The "super-sized solar proton event" is essentially a period of heavy, immense solar flare activity which caused enough radiation to impact large or unprotected species.  The author, LaViolette, provides proof through the Greenland ice records, carbon-14 and atmospheric carbon indicators in conjunction with 2 successive temperature maxima spaced by 1 solar cycle (one solar cycle is approximately 11 years so this event spans 22 years).  This raises his questions surrounding warming due to increased solar output which would substantially impact global climate.   It is evidence postulated by Firestone - that comet impact guy from the above study - that seemingly spurs LaViolette’s argument towards increased solar activity (as this active period would account for data reported by Firestone but also accounts for the lack of data to validate the impact theory). With LaViolette’s theory, only larger animals or unprotected (for example, humans as they were unaware of radiation concerns) would be impacted. 

LaViolette’s theory is relatively sound but, in and of itself and considering the span of time and the unequal disposition of the extinction but it still leaves a few questions.  Some are species specific... such as why wooly mammoth and not African elephants - was it just the external heating features?  Why the Smilodons (saber-toothed cats) and atrox (American lion) and not the African lion or many species of tigers or other large cats?  Simply put, it's likely this theory could not - even on the most forgiving judgement-lapsed day - be the sole cause of the Rancholabrean extinction. 

Blitzkrieg, Sitzkrieg, and Overkill

In the recent past a theory began to take ‘center stage’ surrounding the introduction of humans into previously unoccupied areas of the world as the primary cause for the Pleistocene extinctions (specifically the Rancholabrean extinction).  The basis of the theory surrounds an introduction of an exotic and invasive new, highly efficient predator (Clovis people, the original North American Homo sapien sapien) upsetting the balance for the large megafauna which exhibit slow maturation with protracted reproductive rates.   Proof for this theory is found at what is known as Clovis kills sites; areas where these people would clean meat and hides from kills.  Clovis kill sites often contain megafaunal remains such as mastodon and mammoth.  The efficiency of the Clovis people upset the balance as the mega-predators primarily fed upon the mega-herbivores.  The difference between “overkill” and “Blitzkrieg” is merely in the speed of the event. 

To coincide with this theory is the Sitzkrieg theory, which states that fires and exotic species (such as the Clovis people, for example) allowed for habitat fragmentation and introduction of diseases hereto unseen by the Rancholebrean megafauna.

Limited Scope and Tunnel Vision

But you know what? Regardless of how many articles I read, there seems to be evidence and granules of truth littered through each.  Trying to pinpoint the first ripple that started a chain of events in recent history is hard enough - but finding that first drip from 16 thousand years ago?!   C'mon, really? 

So, let's think for a moment.  There are things that are incontestable:

1. A large portion of Pleistocene epoch megafauna went extinct in, geologically speaking, a short amount of time.
2. Humans were present prior to the extinctions in other areas that still have megafauna.
3. There are mineral/cosmic remnants found in relation to the same general period of time.
4. There was a period of warming and massive reduction in glaciation.

When we simply look at the 4 points listed immediately above, therein may lay an answer.  Often we, as a society, look to find the root cause of an anomaly.  Yet if we take a snapshot of the past 100 years, it’s easy to see that one unnoticed event causes a trophic cascade (that's the drip/ripple effect I mentioned above) with people later attempting to decipher what happened first that caused the entire event.  It is very similar to the age-old riddle “what came first: the chicken or the egg?”.   In all likelihood, all of the rationale we know to be true contributed to the Rancholabrean and Pliestocene extinctions.  Solar activity leads to global temperature increases.  Those increases in temperature reduce glaciers and cause environmental change.  The introduction of new diseases and invasive species – especially highly efficient ones – impacts population rates.  Together, it seems highly logical to provide the insurmountable odds against survival for the largest mammals the world has seen.  So... sometimes we spend all our energy and effort looking for one reason when it was possibly the 'perfect storm' of climate change and species introduction.  Does it suck?  *&^% yes, it does.  I'd give my right hand to see some of the animals I blogged about before.

My love of my Smilodon knows no bounds - and I spend days on end dreaming of him. 

Ok. Enough of that.  if you're dying to see where I got my info, here's the wonderful world of science: 

Works Cited

Brook, Barry W. and David M. J. S. Bowman. (2002) Explaining the Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions: Models, chronologies, and assumptions. Proc National Academy of Science USA 99:14624-14627.
Campos, Paul F. et al (2010) Ancient DNA analyses exclude humans as the driving force behind late Pleistocene musk ox (Ovibos moschatus) population dynamics. Proc National Academy of Science USA 107:5675-5680.
Haynes, C. Vance Jr. et al. (2009) The Murray Springs Clovis site, Pleistocene extinction, and the question of extraterrestrial impact. Proc National Academy of Science USA 107:4010-4015
Firestone, Richard B. et al. (2007) Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling. Proc National Academy of Science USA 104:16016-16021
Firestone, Richard B. (2009) The Case for the Younger Dryas Extraterrestrial Impact Event: Mammoth, Megafauna, and Clovis Extinction, 12,900 years ago.  Journal of Cosmology 2:256-285.
LaViolette, Paul A. (2011) Evidence for a Solar Flare Cause of the Pleistocene Mass Extinction. Radiocarbon 53:303-323

Dreaming of Days Gone By

Pleistocene Epoch.  Rancho LaBrean Era... 

These are things that spur people to do the "70-degree head tilt" - i.e. ask a question like a canine - and

Yah... Usual Fodder so we know
who you're talking to.

wonder what you just said.  Not exactly normal words for conversation.  Unless you're a paleontologist... or me and a few of my buds?  I don't really understand how this brief period in the world's history can't absolutely astonish everyone.  The wonders of the world - far more comprehendable than the virtually alien world of the dinosaurs - were epic.  The big animals of that time - called megafauna - were seemingly created from dream-like visions of children.  

North American megafauna were nothing short of awe-inspiring.  People may see what we have now - the great grizzly, the popular polars, the  charismatic cougars - and think "those are pretty big".  Beyond our continental borders they see the elephants and the lions and the tigers and... well, surely those are seriously "mega" megafauna, right?  Hmmm... lets dream together, shall we?  Let me show you what we've lost through my eyes.

American Lions

American lions were the longest/tallest felids that have ever graced our planet.  Panthera Atrox.  Osteologic affinity to current lions and tigers... with heavy Eurasian cave lion resemblance.  We're talking about the biggest cat to roam the Americas.  Likely tawny and very similar to extant lions of today... only bigger!  We're talking seriously "mega".

Machairodontine Smilodon... 

...better known as saber-toothed felids or cats.  These were, quite simply, the most amazing cats that have ever graced our planet.  If we take a census of current (i.e. extant or still here) felids, a lot of people think that tawny-coated king of the jungle is the biggest.  Those people would actually be wrong.  The largest extant felid is the inappropriately named Siberian Tiger.  Dazzle your friends by calling this cat by their correct name: the Ussuri or Amur tiger.

I want you to picture the Amur in your mind.  We're talking about a splendidly-colored, 800-pound cat with the stealth and grace to vanish mere feet from your eyes in the forest.  Simply... vanish.  That's hard to comprehend that something so hulkingly large and vibrantly colored can simply vanish and only leave tracks.  Want an idea of how big? The average refrigerator is about the right size... granted it only weighs an average of of what... 250-350 lbs?  Here's a thought - here's a photo of Vladimir Putin with a female (smaller as they are dimorphic and the males grow larger).  The reason I need you to so accurately picture the size of this cat in your mind is to help you contrast the world's largest extant felid to the Smilodons of ages past.  This cat - even the small female here - could break bones with a swipe of a paw or, in the grasp of it's teeth, shake me like a doll and simply carry me off as a meal.

Putin with a 5-year old Amur female c/o Wonderful Russia

There were actually 3 species of Smilodon.  Smilodon gracilis, Smilodon fatalis, and Smilodon populator.  The gracilis was the smallest of the three, weighing in around 55-100 kg (or 120-220ish pounds).  This cat was tiny in that era, only the size of the current cougars, jaguars or leopards.  Then we have my "baby"... the Smilodon fatalis which is my most favorite felid in history.  The fatalis was the North American icon, really.  There's hundreds of relics left from this cat.  The fatalis weighed in between 160-280 kg (or 350-620 lbs). Now we're talking... this is a big kitty.  While some Amurs tip the scales at 800 pounds or more, the average Amur falls right in the size range of fatalis.  Maybe that correlation is why the Amur is my favorite extant species?  *shrugs*  Lastly, I need you to expand your mind and picture South America's populator - the last of our three saber-toothed felid species.  Populator was... epic.  Titanic.  Enormous. Gigantic.  How big, you ask?  Try up to 470kg (over 1,000 lbs).  The 'average version' of this cat tips the scales at what a rare Amur weighs; you know, the huge males that are flawless examples of Amur tigers.

Populator size - Deviant art - copyright attached

Moreover, you noticed (hopefully) that the Atrox was the longest while the Populator is the heaviest.  So... which is actually BIGGER?  Depends on if you look at size or mass. The differences?  These cats did differ from the leggy, fluid grace of the Atrox and extant cats we've mentioned.  While I'm sure Smilodons relied on stealth and ambush like today's felids, I want you to imagine a more compact, robust, stocky, muscular cat.  The difference I mention can be seen when you contrast a jaguar with a tiger.... the mass of the jaguar - the sheer ripple of muscle tightly packed under the skin, the slightly shorter legs, the size that belies the robust strength inherently possessed - is much like our Smilodon.  These cats were grapplers.  They would catch their massive prey and simply pull it down, overpowered by inconceivable strength. When grounded, the drastically large, curved, serrated sabers would then - with surgical precision - sever the tender flesh of the prey's neck and bring a hopefully quick and clean death.*  What a sight lingering throughout the ages.   

(*This is my interpretation of the hunting and killing methods of this cat; while there is scholarly debate, anyone saying these teeth were used to disembowel giant ungulates of the time really need to consider jaw structure and... if they need a visual... use a 'jawed staple-remover' to puncture a basketball.)

Finally, lets look at...

Arctotherium Angustidens and Arctodos Simus 

Angustidens and Simus are more commonly known as the short-faced bears (South and North American respectively) even though they aren't completely snub-nosed as the name would imply.  While ursids - bears - aren't my forte, there's no discussing the most mega without including these two.  Angustidens was the largest mammalian predator to walk our planet. Ever.  There's no adjectives that can really portray how amazingly huge these bears are.  Sometimes words simply fall short.  While there's debate on the hunting styles and dietary preference of these bears (omnivorous? carnivorous? active hunter or scavenger or cleptoparasitic?) they are still epic. Regardless, let's take a gander... I've nabbed some pics - mostly deviant art like the size comparison above, but one from NPS.gov.  Let's look: 

Simus

Angustidens

Grizzly, Polar, and Simus

Where did they go? 

So... now that we've had a moment to marvel at the greatest apex predators that vanished from our planet in our so-very-recent geologic past... why are they gone? I mean, it's not like all the megafauna went the way of the dodo.  Africa still has plenty.  So... why did Australia and the Americas fare so poorly?  Tons of theories.  Tons.  Some are so far fetched that I find myself rolling my eyes.  Others are plausible but, on the same token, likely not capable as stand-alone logic.  Maybe soon I'll have some more for you... we'll look at the theories together and postulate plausibility?  It'll be fun, really.  I mean, there's comet impacts and solar flares and some very "German-esque war machine sounding words" we can look at.  In the end, however, I think you'll agree with me that the likelihood of a single event causing anything isn't nearly as attractive a theory as a combination of events.

Enough of being indoors.... it's gorgeous outside... time to go out and PLAY!

"Ma'am,... Please put the cub down and slowly back away"

I talk animals a lot.  Seriously.  I'm told to "shut it" more often than not (thankfully with a glare and seldom with the actual words).  So, one day I'm talking animals with a bud when somehow the conversation turn to a topic called "habituation". If you're not familiar with the word, no worries, I'll help.

Habituation - in the wildlife world - simply means the animal is exposed to a certain stimulus (like, humans, for example) and therefore stop responding in the natural manner.  You've probably experienced a form of habituation if you've ever been to a zoo.... specifically the primate buildings. They're not known for being a harmonious blend of odoriferous bouquets.  You walk in and your nose balks, begging you to cover and leave; but ironically, after a few mere minutes, you don't even realize there's a stench.  The same principle is in use: if animals are exposed to humans, they lose their natural tendency to react in a specific manner.  

Let's consider that...

Jane Goodall... you've heard of her, right?  Everything she did surrounded habituating chimpanzees to her presence.  In her study, she was relying on habituation to provide a rare glimpse to see chimpanzees interacting in their normal fashion in the wild. So... this is where the ethics of the habituation come in.  See, I'm a fence rider to some degree on this one.  I wouldn't walk up to Ms. Goodall and berate her for habituating chimpanzees to humans because I'd likely be doing what most people do: simply be enamored by tales from the jungle. I'm also pretty fond of my bud Dave who is pretty accomplished at interacting with wildlife in the wild (albeit I'll defend him since he also worked to teach captive tiger cubs how to be wild again).  Then there's me... we "inherited" a deer named Filene.  But even with Filene, I try not to break the rules (I don't have a bowl outside for her filled with treats...).  Just for the record, if you feed birds, different story.  ...even though that goes awry (like when the 50+ flock devastates my feeders).

But again: Fence Rider.  And the fence that I'm perched precariously on isn't a very wide one.  For the most part, and in most circumstances, I completely disagree with habituation of animals.  There'd better be some solid science on the line and not simply a photo op or a ratings ploy.  There's a pretty solid logical reason for my generally stubborn stance on this one:

If you take away an animals natural fear of people you've taken away the very best protection that animal has against people.  For lots of reasons.  Let's look at a few examples.  For these, I'm a bear (yes... I am... don't question it).  I'm naturally afraid of people.  They have funny smells and my instinct says that even if they are virtually hairless, clawless, and toothless predators, they are still the most efficient and deadly predators ever.  That's my instinct jumping all through me. BUT:

Photo from App Bear Rescue

• "This one human keeps hanging out by me.  First I started to hurry away, but... geez, it won't bugger OFF!  ...and it's berry season and its right there at my berries.  After awhile, I give up and ignore it, because I'm hungry and its not bugging me... it's just... there!"
  
  So in that example, what happens the next time the human isn't the harmless person but someone hunting.
  
  ...or worse, its a soccer mom taking a nature walk with her kids and here's this bear with no fear of humans.  
• "This other human keeps putting out things that I swear its doing for me. It smells so good!  I can't help myself... I mean, I'm a bear... and that's a flawlessly made NummyBear Stew if I ever smelled one!  I'm trying to resist cuz it's right there by its porch but wow.  Did I mention it's the best I've smelled?  Who am I kidding.  I can't resist that.  Besides, it set that out for me cuz that's way to good'a NummyBear Stew for it to not be for me, so I'm going to go sample the goods!"
  
  So in that example, the bear learns that nomnom goodness can be attained from humans.  This porch, that porch, campgrounds, garbage cans, tents, cars.... after the lesson is learned, it's a slipper slope because even if it's in a nontraditional sense, the human just became the food source. Like the saying goes: "Fed bear is a dead bear."  The human's fault.  

Regardless how cheezy my examples are, people really need to understand this lesson not only for the wild creatures in our world, but also for those wild animals that we are responsible for (for whatever reason) with the intent to release them back into the wild.  Wild animals have to retain that natural instinct and that fear of people.  It's what helps keep them safe.  It's what helps keep us safe as well.  We can't turn wildlife rehab animals into mascots.  If we hug and cuddle and kiss the cute little guys that we're rehab'ing... what happens after we release them?  Do you think they're going to see humans as a cruel conflict-fueled potentials?  Well, likely not since they got "kissy face" and bottle feeding from them for so long.  

I'd love to take credit for this rant... but honestly I can't.  I mean, do I agree? Sure.  Is it something important?  Yup.  But I am afraid that I suffer from a double-X chromosomal disorder that prompts me to start cooing and making unintelligible words every time I'm near certain species.  I'd like to say it's not my fault, but personal accountability kicks in and I realize that the best thing I can do to help that "ootsie-wootsie wittle beh-bay" is to keep it safe by not making it think humans are friends.  Face it folks, some of us are advocates but that doesn't mean humans all are... you know it and I do... so act, think, feed, and coo responsibly.  It's for their safety.

Global Warming is Simple... what's the deal?

I hear debates about global warming quite often.  It's one of those things that just spawns a good debate... like evolution. What I really don't get, though, is why we're always arguing it.  I mean, I realize I'm a tree-hugging, fern-cuddling, bunny lover... but really? If everyone would stop standing so stubbornly on their side of the fence ranting till they're blue in the face (at the same time the person on the other side is ranting) and took just five freaking minutes to hear each other out, maybe we could actually learn something.  Far too often people are so busy thinking about what they are going to say as a response that they miss half the conversation.  Even if it's not your thought/belief, show respect and listen to other folks instead of continuing your side of the rant in your head... and maybe you'll be shown some respect in return and both parties may glean a thought they didn't have before.  Anyhow, before I digress into a diatribe about our general lack of communication skills, let's think this out together:

1. There were climate shifts (some massive) before and around the time humans discovered that newfangled gadget called fire.  We lovingly refer to these periods in time as "ice ages".  Nope, it's not just a movie anymore, folks.  Ice covers, ice recedes... rinse and repeat.  There's other factors to look at here as well.  Examples are solar cycles (generally 11 year shifts if memory serves, but please don't quote me on that one) and volcanic activity.  Granted, I'm sure there's a slough of natural things that contribute to and help the ozone and climate and yaddah yaddah.  
2. Anyone who says we don't contribute to global warming: please raise your hand.  Ok... you, you, and you there in the back; go ahead and take a seat over in a different yard.  Of course we contribute to global warming.  For a period in time during the industrial age, I'm sure we were pumping out junk that contributed to a lot of things and very few healthy for you or your planet.  To say we don't contribute is like saying we don't inhale mostly nitrogen.  

So - does that mean that climate change (ya'll should have known this would get back to animals soon) is the sole culprit behind potential for some species to go extinct - we'll use the climate change poster child: Polar Bears.  Yes and no.  Let me explain.

• Yes, because we can look through the fossil records and witness that when we have massive climate shifts some things go extinct because of a strong contribution from climate change (especially if they are in a geologically fast manner... to learn more on ice ages, find a local glaciologist or glacial geologist).    Seriously... it messes with lots of things.  Really. If you don't believe me and don't know a really cool glaciologist, just what that movie "The Day After Tomorrow" and then de-Hollywoodize it, throw away 99.5% of the content and you'll have a tickle of the truth in the back of your mind.  
• No, because there's often contributing factors... the polar bears currently are likely not "going to go extinct" simply from the climate change.  Why?  Well, cuz they suffer massive habitat disruption/ habitat fragmentation, and exploitation from that one species that developed a frontal lobe: US.  

Long story short, folks, is that we've been shaping our world for eons... but it wasn't until we really started to take strides with "technological advances" (you know, like the wheel) that we started really impacting the world.  I've said it a million times, developing/inventing/discovering (pick your fave) agriculture was what initially led to the where we are today.  And where we are today is a society with some pretty cool science and oodles of great gadgets.  But even with all our tools, we're seeing a mere blink on the geologic timeline.  We can't hope to pretend to have answers to all the problems when we're making new discoveries all the time where we FIND new problems.  The real headache comes when we realize that some problems we discovered today are related to the "fixes" we did in the past.  Lots of other issues come from ignorance fueled exploitation.  So easy to see what idiots we were when we have the luxury of hindsight! We, as a species, suffer from hubris, entitlement, and greed at a un-measurable level.  

So in the long run: did we cause global warming? Nope... but when you look at our contributions to it in light of all the other things our species has done in the almighty name of Advancement... what does that answer really say?  

I simply hope we are learning from our mistakes and that, one day, people will honestly feel that they are part of the natural world and act as stewards (rather than the exploitative) parts of a giant puzzle. 

Never let people tell you that one person can't make a difference... granted, he's a wretched example, but Hitler was just one man and we all know the impact he had on the entire world.  I'll end my rant with this quote from Ghandi: "Be the change you want to see in the world."  

Humble Pie? I'll have a double serving, please!

Some people don't like when they do something and they're corrected later.  Me? Heck, I'll take a second serving!  The best way to learn is if you really listen to advice from experts - from people who know more about something than you.  And I mean experts here.  Not the average guy who thinks he knows more than me simply because he came with a Y chromosome.  Those types can just kiss my tush. The key is listening - with an open mind and a decision to learn rather than defend your actions or knowledge.  It's really one of the best ways to learn.  In my case, I was served a great portion of humble pie surrounding my bear charge.  You remember that one, right?  The momma black bear who went from 3 cubs to 2 and then bolted 50 yards downhill at me and my daughter stopping a few mere feet from us? Yah, good times, eh? HAHA.


So I'm talking to a bear expert - I don't want to use his name because I didn't ask permission, but I promise you he's worked "hand-in-paw" with eastern black bears for many years and is very versed on their behavior and how to work with bear.  I trust his input and don't question it.  He has the knowledge and the experience to prove that I'm merely a toddler in the scope of bear.  That being said, here's the humble pie that is an eye opener for me (and a bit scary in retrospect):

My and Jess's actions were perfect for a solitary bear - usually a male - that is too close for comfort.  On the flip side, for a momma in protection mode (as witnessed initially from the cubs being sent up the tree), my reaction wasn't recommended because momma is thinking one thing: keep the cubs safe.  We posed a threat and his recommended action would have been to speak softly, lower my head, and slowly back off.  I did the opposite of that for the most part, which he noted he was glad ended well instead of the alternative (um, me, too!).  I looked bigger and imposing and made a lot of noise.  Perhaps the fact that we did slowly back off was what kept us safe?  In retrospect - again - I see where this makes sense.  I see where my education on bear behavior wasn't precise - I used generic info and I should have learned more.  ESPECIALLY because I knew the mom and cubs were local to my trail.  I knew it.  And I dropped the educate-myself ball.  Granted, bears aren't my forte but, my motto is always to know what's out there that you COULD encounter and be prepared for any situation.  I slacked, I have been corrected, I have assimilated the info and won't make the same mistake again.  Humble pie is not only delicious, but nutritious.  

So, take this knowledge of how I didn't react in the way I should have and add this to the mix: bluff charges aren't usually 50+ yards.  Apparently they're normally pretty short.  So... wow.  Just keeping that fact in perspective with the other info is really eye-opening.  The only thing that apparently made mine a bluff was that she stopped before barreling into me/us. I did get a compliment though - he said that, under the same circumstances, it was really good that I was able to assess the situation and react... apparently acting in the face of an "oh Sh**!" situation is hard.  It's like muscle memory though... you go over and over it in your head and when it happens it's an instant reaction rather than a conscious digging for information in your head.  Now I'll revamp that info so it's more appropriate and situation-based.

In the end, I'll take the info I was taught and beat it into my head so that - if that situation ever comes up again - I'm better prepared.  Which is likely... after all, hundreds of miles away I encountered a momma and her cub.  Some people may say "yah, but you were in a car that time"... hello... it was a convertible camaro.  ...Geez, I miss that car.  I think I may need to buy one.  I'm digressing, aren't I?

But... let's not forget that I'll REALLY glow in the compliment about reaction time!  See, sometimes humble pie has whipped topping! :)