First of all, I apologize for the use of the term "Anasazi". As will become apparent, I am not using this term to refer to the Ancestral Puebloan people. Anasazi is a Dine' (Navajo) word which has been translated to "ancient enemies". Naturally, people of New Mexico's 19 Pueblos, as well as the Hopi, object to the use of this term and have replaced it with "Ancestral Puebloans". Again, no disrespect to the modern-day Hopi or Pueblo people, but the hypothesis I wish to present here makes a distinction between the ancestors of the Puebloan and Hopi people and those the Dine' referred to as the Anasazi. If you ask some Dine' elders they will tell you that the word Anasazi does not refer to the ancestors of the Pueblos or the Hopi, but a third group who migrated into this region from the south. Mainstream archaeology does not recognize this third group and classifies all the people responsible for the ruins of the 4 corners region as Ancestral Puebloans. There is still much uncertainty as to what happened to the Ancestral Puebloans and why they dispersed so suddenly. Dine' oral history paints a more complex picture and may help answer some of the questions archaeologists puzzle over. This would be a good time to listen to Dine' elder Wally Brown Jr. give the Navajo perspective on the term Anasazi: Again, apologies for the use of the word, but please understand that the term Anasazi is not being used to refer to the Ancestral Puebloan people. The picture that is emerging is that ruins such as Chaco Canyon and other "great house" type structures were constructed by these Anasazi invaders, or their slaves. An interesting feature of some of these sites are "ball court" constructions, such as one found at Wupatki National Monument outside Flagstaff. These ball courts bear a striking resemblance to similar constructions found among ruins in Mexico. While mainstream archaeologists attribute all the ruins found in the southwest to Ancestral Puebloan people, Wally Brown's account talks about three distinct groups in addition to the Dine' who inhabited the region: The Cliff Dwellers; The Pueblo Tribes (not a single tribe); and The Anasazi who inhabited the area for probably less than 300 years. These Anasazi took over sites which had previously been inhabited by Ancestral Puebloans whom they enslaved, according to the Dine' narrative. Not all researchers consider the Ancestral Puebloans as a monolithic culture. One such researcher is the late Christie Turner. His research gained notoriety when he published the infamous book "Man Corn", in which he presents evidence of cannibalism found among human remains associated with many of the ruins in the Southwest. Turner focused his research on Chaco Canyon, but evidence of the grim practice has now been recognized elsewhere in the region. Christie Turner's theory is summarized in the following documentary, but it is important to watch until the end where Turner himself walks you through his idea that an offshoot of Mesoamerican cultures in Mexico migrated into this region bringing their cannibalistic practices with them. The theory Christie Turner presents bears a striking resemblance to the histories related by Wally Brown. Turner's work has been criticized for similar reasons that the use of the term Anasazi is. Both seem to cast the ancestors of modern-day Pueblo and Hopi peoples in an unfavorable light. This is only so when we cling to the mainstream narrative which makes no distinction between the peoples of the Pueblos, the Cliff Dwellers, and the Anasazi. They interpret the violence as the result of internecine conflicts.
Both Wally Brown and Christie Turner's work identify another group coming up from the south who were the ones responsible for the cannibalism, and apparently slavery, according to the Dine' narrative. This takes the blame off the Ancestral Puebloans and paints them as the victims rather than the perpetrators of these bizarre and violent acts. Wally Brown further states that the Anasazi were driven out of this region and/or destroyed, and that none of the people living here today are related to them. Among many cultures, including the Dine', people tend to avoid speaking about tragic events. The purpose here is not to offend but to bring a more accurate understanding and, if possible, learn from the past. The violent rituals of Mesoamerican cultures like the Maya are well documented. These cultures were contemporary with the Ancestral Puebloans. Artifacts of Mesoamerican origin such as parrot feathers and seashells have been found in Ancestral Puebloan sites. Much of the evidence of violence uncovered in Ancestral Puebloan sites suggests very brutal violence and includes evidence of mass killings. This kind of violence goes far beyond what is necessary for the acquisition of resources. This kind of violence smacks of religious fanaticism. It could be that the perpetrators of this violence were in the grip of some sort of religious cult. Perhaps they tried to terrorize, enslave and rule over the people they found already living here when they arrived. If the Dine' and the Ancestral Puebloans were able to rid themselves of this negative influence, then that is a great victory for peace that should be remembered. These hypotheses certainly warrant further research. DNA studies could be done on various remains to hopefully shed more light on this history. Mainstream archaeology gives little if any credence to oral traditions, but that may be changing. That scientific research corroborates oral traditions would seem to lend credence to both narratives. If this topic interests you, please take the time to view all the videos posted above. In addition, here are a few other articles that could be helpful:
0 Comments
. The "teachable moment" is a catchphrase among teachers and other educators. It refers to those times when the situation offers an opportunity for the teacher to demonstrate some valuable lesson. Life also offers us teachable moments, sometimes when we least expect it, or when we are not seeking it. In my experience as an educator, perhaps the most important factor is a student's motivation, readiness, and willingness to learn. Put simply, if a person is not interested in learning a given subject, they won't.
For example, the other day I had to get some work done on my truck. So, I dropped it off for the day and made my way on foot up to the public library. Where they used to have some tables and chairs set up behind the stacks it was now devoid of furniture, a post-pandemic pandemic measure, maybe. There was still a small circle of easy chairs set up right by the entrance, so I sat down there to read my book. A homeless woman came and sat down there and began talking to me. She thought I was a fellow homeless person. I tried to be polite as she began telling me about all her problems (you know the type: it's hard to get a word in edgewise once they get going). She told me about how she was the victim of some scam where she was swindled out of her house. I asked if she had a lawyer, and she said she didn't trust lawyers. Then she told me about how she just found out she is eligible for Social Security but couldn't access it. I asked her if she knew her SSN, she did. I said she could go on their website and it would tell her what to do. She said she doesn't carry a smartphone. I pointed out the computers in the library and she said she didn't use computers, for some reason. The point is that in spite of all this available help, in spite of her life circumstances (she could certainly use a Social Security check), in spite of all the evidence that learning something new might be helpful, she was just not willing to learn. She basically wanted someone to do it for her. The whole encounter left me somewhat bewildered. Other times the ego presents an obstacle to learning, and similarly, fear. To be ready to learn means you have to put yourself in a vulnerable position. You have to admit you don't know some things. You have to be willing to make mistakes in front of your peers. I have seen students become virtually paralyzed by the fear of getting something wrong in front of their classmates. Anything educators can do to create an environment where students feel comfortable making mistakes will go a long way in this respect. Some people take it so far as to attempt to pretend they know something they really don't, rather than risk the vulnerability of actual learning. The real experts can always spot these people a mile away. In the end, which path is more embarrassing? The message here is not for the teachers, or even the students out there, but for anyone who wants to improve themselves in any way. The acquisition of new knowledge, skills and abilities is never a bad thing. Fear is always a negative, it is something to be overcome. Be willing to make mistakes. Be willing to laugh at yourself. Seek out experts who can teach you what you want to know or be able to do. Some things are very difficult at first and require a lot of practice. A gymnast or a skateboarder attempting to learn a new move must fail many times before they perfect the trick. Failure becomes your teacher. You have to learn to embrace it. The bottom line is the only person who is ever going to improve themselves and learn anything is the one who is motivated, ready, and willing to learn. This has to come from within. The teacher is irrelevant. Any accomplished athlete will usually have to work with a number of different coaches during their career. The best are the ones who essentially become their own coaches. Their progress is not dictated by who their coach is. They have taken ownership over their own training. This is an example of what it means to be a lifelong learner. The frustrating thing about the climate "crisis" is the way it tends to be presented in the media. It is presented as a very urgent problem, an "existential crisis", "time is running out" we are told, "action is needed now". The message of the protesters outside the COP 26 conference in Glasgow is essentially "enough talk, it's time for action." What I am looking for in all of this hype is the solutions. We need to act now, but what are we supposed to do? I mean, really, I see very little specific information on solutions to climate change. It is very clear what we need to stop doing (burning fossil fuels), but what should we be doing, meaning the average person on the street. I want to ask the next pundit I hear telling us how urgent the climate crisis is how they got to work this morning. "If it was in a fossil fuel powered vehicle, then, STFU! You're part of the problem", stupid Americans . . .
In many ways this can be seen as an American problem, or an American lifestyle problem. And, much of the world aspires to our standard of living. If we look at the largest oil consuming countries we will see China at the top of the list with 3381 Mtoe (Megatons of oil equivalents) oil consumed in 2019. The U.S. comes in at #2 with 2046 Mtoe oil consumed in the same year. "Those greedy Chinese", you might say, but we must remember that China has over four times as many people as the United States. When we look at the oil consumption per person, the average American uses over 5 times as much oil (31,223 kWh) as the average Chinese citizen (5,406 kWh). And, many in the world still aspire to our high standard of living. So, you see, the American way cannot be the way of the world. To our credit, the United States is doing a little better than China in terms of our per capita coal consumption (9,573 kWh, vs. 15,823 kWh). The elephant in the living room is our total consumption. The world still consumes over 80% of its energy in the form of fossil fuels. One reason is that none of the other energy sources come close to fossil fuels in terms of energy per kilogram, or energy per acre, or energy per dollar, however you choose to measure it. We have become spoiled rotten by this extremely rich, extremely cheap source of energy. I put the essential question to my Environmental Science students in this way: "Can we maintain our current energy consumption, while at the same time eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels?" I say, no! Absolutely not! If we are ever to eliminate fossil fuels we are going to have to seriously reduce our overall energy consumption. This is not a popular idea, however. We are talking about expanding the electrical grid (to accommodate the coming transition to electric vehicles which the current grid could not handle) not reducing it. And, remember, we had better make sure all the new electrical generation necessary to power those electric vehicles comes from renewables and/or nuclear power. Much of the promotional material we see for renewable energy technologies, while not coming right out and saying it, seems to suggest that we can have this beautiful green cake of a future, and eat it too, without giving up anything. This is pure fantasy. Sure one day we may develop the technology to make this possible, but it is not possible with current technologies. What is most sorely needed is for us to adjust our expectations and learn to make due with less. The energy consumption picture in the developed world is overburdened with waste. This might be the low hanging fruit for the climate movement. Addressing waste and inefficiency can go a long way to reducing our fossil fuel dependence as well as reducing our overall energy needs. So, we should start there. Tackling waste will not be enough, however. We will still need to figure out how to use less. This is where adjusting our expectations and even our lifestyles, just a little bit, could really help. Let's look at the electric vehicle problem as an illustration. The problem is how to scale-down an automobile so that it can run on electricity. We've done a pretty good job of matching the speed and power of a gasoline powered vehicle (a Tesla Model S goes 0 - 60mph in 1.99 seconds). Where the technology is lagging is in the range and in the charge times. It takes me less than 5 minutes to gas-up my pick-up truck. That Tesla could take 8 - 10 hours to get a full charge. My Ram 1500 pick-up can easily make over 500 miles on a single tank of gas. The Tesla will be lucky to make it 400 miles on a charge. All of this, like I said, is based on scaling down an automobile to run on electricity. What about scaling-up a bicycle to run on electricity. First off, the amount of energy required to drive a bicycle at the same speed (yes, the same speed, think in-town driving) as a car will be much less. The speeds and power possible on an electric bike are far greater than those possible on a traditional bike. Cargo carrying capacity would also be increased over a regular bike. Add a third wheel, or a trailer, and you could carry some seriously heavy loads. How many of the typical trips to get groceries or items at the drug store could be managed just as well on an appropriately equipped electric bike as they could in an SUV? Of course I might still need my pick-up to haul the occasional load of lumber, but we could replace automobiles with electric bicycles on a large portion of the errands we run on a daily basis. Inner cities will be the first to phase out gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, which will make them far more livable spaces, too. It would be much safer to simply eliminate cars from whole sections of cities. Unfortunately, bicycles don't seem to mix well with car and truck traffic. Right now, safety is a significant barrier to many would be bicyclists, electric or otherwise. Americans could adjust their expectations when it comes to energy consumption and actually see an increased quality of life in terms of better health and a cleaner environment. Part of it is about where we choose to live in relation to our jobs. We know that the rush hour gridlock experienced in most American cities is absurd, extremely unhealthy both mentally and physically, and I think deep down we all realize it is completely unnecessary. For many, the pandemic lockdowns illustrated this perfectly. If you want to live in the suburbs, consider tele-commuting, at least part of the time. Consider using public transport. Invest in a comfortable backpack. If the inner cities were made into more livable spaces, then people would not feel the need to buy a house 100 miles away in the suburbs. People could live near enough to their work to walk or bike. Restaurant and food markets could be located in pedestrian zones which would make for a much more pleasant dining or shopping experience. Besides, who wants to buy their produce on the sidewalk next to a busy intersection. Perhaps we could reserve fossil fuels for the big jobs like hauling large quantities of freight, construction, and military uses. The bottom line is that us here in the "Developed World" are going to need to learn to do with less in terms of energy, if there is any hope of meeting the goal of eliminating fossil fuels. The rest of the world is looking at us. We need to lead by example. "We are the origin of all coming evil . . . " ~Carl Gustav Jung Truer words have never been spoken. We are always looking "out there" for the next threat. The next virus, the next meteor, the next earthquake, the next hurricane. All of these things pose threats, for sure, but they are external. No threat, as professor Jung points out, is greater than the internal threat; the threat we pose to each other. And, the root of this threat is the human mind along with our ignorance of it. The real threat stems from the fact that most people are ignorant of the inner workings of the mind, but not everybody. There are select groups of people who study the human psyche and how to manipulate it. One such group are hypnotists, or as practitioners of this art call it, "neuro-linguistic programming". That sounds much more scientific, doesn't it. The point is, it works. A decent hypnotist can induce a trance in the majority of people and get them to do things totally outside of their awareness and conscious control. In the TED talk posted below, Albert Nerenberg is amazingly open with the audience. He reveals some of how hypnotism works and he keeps the presentation fairly light and even comical. I couldn't help but notice how in one part of the video he gives one of the subjects an imaginary gun they are to use to put the other subjects to "sleep" with, as well as themselves. The subject did not hesitate to do as instructed with the imaginary gun, just like all of the other post-hypnotic suggestions subjects were given. Often subjects do not remember performing all of the things they did while under hypnosis. Not to put too fine a point on it, but what if it was a real gun? Another group which studies the mind is psychologists. A particular branch of psychology, operant conditioning, is concerned with changing behavior. B.F. Skinner is given credit for doing the initial experiments in this field. Most people are familiar with terms such as positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement and punishment. Initially these techniques were focused on modifying the behavior of animals. Researchers soon realized that these techniques are effective in modifying human behavior as well. In fact, much of the popularity of operant conditioning techniques is based on the fact that it works, even on humans. B.F. Skinner did not invent operant conditioning. He merely invented the vocabulary used to describe it scientifically. His experiments were mainly restricted to animal subjects. However, operant conditioning has been used on human beings for centuries. Is it ethical to use operant conditioning on humans? In some cases "nature" or the environment delivers natural consequences to our actions which may influence future behavior. However, when one person or group is given power over another, the power to administer positive or negative reinforcement or punishments. This is the only way operant conditioning works, by giving one group power over another. Just read through your mobile phone contract to see who holds the power in that relationship. And, it works very well. It works on animals, and everyone pretty much agrees that humans are superior to animals, so there is little ethical concern. But, what about when we turn this tool on our fellow humans. It works very well on humans, too, but the power differential must be there for it to work, and because of this there is the potential for abuse. This is why there are some ethical concerns with the use operant conditioning on humans. Consider the utter inability of most adolescents to control their smart phone use, let alone many adults. These devices are based on operant conditioning. It is not necessarily for the customer's benefit that they work that way either. Of course, it is primarily based on positive reinforcement, a "reward" system. However, it can be just as manipulative, if not more so, due to the covert nature of the positive reinforcement. What is being reinforced (i.e. controlled) is your behavior. None of these lessons from the fields of neuro-linguistic programming and operant conditioning have been lost to one of the most powerful industries in the modern world. Namely, advertising and media. Some of the best evidence for the importance given to advertising is the amount of money spent. Last year (2020) 263.4 billion dollars was spent, in the U.S. alone, on advertising. Few of us are aware of just how much of our beliefs, attitudes, and behavior are controlled by outside forces. There may be many nefarious reasons to want to control people in this way, but the most obvious reason is economic. They want your money! It is very useful to study psychology. As Carl Jung says, ignorance of the human mind may prove to be the downfall of our species. A good place to start is with the two subjects mentioned above, and to become aware of how this knowledge is being used all around us all the time. Petroglyphs (carved) and pictographs (painted) are found on every continent except Antarctica. Currently, some cave paintings found in Sulawesi are being touted as the worlds oldest, at over 45,000 years. However, only a small fraction of rock art has been dated directly. Most of the time dates are given based on other artifacts which were found in close proximity to the rock art images. Direct dating of petroglyphs is very difficult and rarely even attempted. Many rock art images are easily recognizable depictions of animals and humans. Some images, such as cave paintings found in Europe, are amazingly realistic, while others look more like the drawings of children. Still others appear to be of a more symbolic nature. These images are not easily interpreted. Geometric patterns and shapes, bizarrely distorted humanoid figures, zigzagging lines, circular mandala-like images. These last two images are of the ubiquitous "squatter man" or "stick man" figure. These images, along with all other images on this website are by the author. These squatter man images were taken in southeastern Utah. The interesting thing is that squatter man rock art has been found worldwide. This is a strange fact given that it is doubtful that people thousands of years ago, on separate continents, would have been in communication with one another. There are other types of rock art, besides the squatter man, which are also found in many places throughout the world. There is a fascinating theory which offers an intriguing explanation for many of the petroglyphs and pictographs which are so ubiquitous. Anthony Peratt is a well respected physicist who had been conducting laboratory experiments in high-energy plasma physics. The story goes that he was showing a friend some of the images of plasma formations in the presence of strong magnetic fields that had been produced during these experiments. His friend made a remark about how the images reminded him of rock art images he had seen all over the southwest United States. Peratt did not realize exactly what he was talking about until his friend took him out to look at some rock art images. Peratt was so impressed by what he saw that he soon embarked on a years-long research project in which he cataloged millions of rock art images from around the world. In their article, "Searching for Rock Art Evidence of an Ancient Super Aurora", Peratt and co-author Marinus Anthony Van Der Sluijs say, "Our survey of rock art images over the past decade has taken us to 139 countries, where we have recorded over 4 million individual rock art images . . ." So, these are not merely casual un-scientific observations. His conclusion is that many rock art images are depictions of actual events which were visible in the night sky, worldwide to ancient observers, and that many of the seemingly abstract images are, in fact, accurate drawings of an ancient super-aurora (as in Aurora Borealis, the "Northern Lights" which are the result of charged particles from the sun interacting with the Earth's magnetic field) which was visible in the past but not during modern times. In addition to the article linked above, here is a presentation by Anthony Peratt himself: Peratt's published research: "Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity" Below are some rock art images I have collected from Southeastern Utah which seem to confirm Peratt's theory: More rock art here: Petroglyphs & Pictographs
We've been living in a type of alternate reality for a year now. A completely man-made alternate reality. Like "virtual" reality, it isn't reality at all - by definition. Simulation would be a more appropriate word. Not to say that the pandemic wasn't real, only that it shows us how dependent we are on outside sources of information when forming our beliefs and opinions, or in assessing risk. Our current virtual reality has been created for us mainly by governments in cooperation with the media. By emphasizing certain topics and views, while others remain hidden, the public perception is guided. It is good to keep in mind just how much of what we believe was simply handed to us, and accepted, with very little critical examination. Let's face it, how many of us really understand how viruses work? How many of us really understand how the immune system works? How many of us really understand how traditional vaccines work, let alone this new mRNA "platform" (their word not mine) which is also being classified as a vaccine. Most of us, not knowing the science, are compelled to trust the "experts". We need to trust that they really do understand what they are doing. We need to trust that they have no conflicts of interest, that they do not stand to profit on the sale of an inadequately tested technology. And, we need to trust that there is no hidden agenda, that these "experts" really have our best interests at heart. Trust, like belief, is something we resort to in the absence of true understanding. We have been conditioned by society to be trusting, cooperative, and obedient. Let's see, where else do these qualities come into play? Domesticated animals tend to display these qualities. We want them to be trusting, cooperative, and obedient. Domesticated animals also tend to be less intelligent than their wild counterparts, as well as more overweight and weaker. Therefore, they need our protection, they wouldn't be able to survive in the wild. We also need to vaccinate them because they are weak, and the poor quality of the feed they are given results in weakened immune systems. Get the picture? Are you a domesticated animal? All of the finger pointing, blame, and controversy that has been generated over the response, or lack of response, to the pandemic has been based on, what I believe to be, a flawed assumption: that humans are able to control nature. There is no evidence for this, especially over the long-term. Throughout all of history we can see example after example of humanity's failure to control nature. There are always unforeseen consequences to any new technology, and every new discovery reveals ever increasing levels of complexity. Perhaps, nature can't be controlled. That's because nature is wild. As soon as you tame a wild animal they are no longer natural, they are domesticated and therefore dependent. This is what is meant by "breaking" an animal. You are "breaking" their spirit. Wildness is the opposite of domestication. It is skepticism, in place of blind trust. It is rebellious, rather than cooperative. It is disobedient. It is intelligent. It is strong. All of these things are the opposite of domesticated. One more thing, wild animals will fight to the death, a domestic animal will go limp right before you cut their throat, offering no resistance. Wild animals are programed to survive. Domestic animals are programed to be food. So, I'll ask the question again. Are you a domesticated animal? Are you going to be trusting, obedient, cooperative, weak, and stupid.? Or, are you ready to get in touch with your wild side? How are Humans different from animals? This was the final question for my Advanced Biology students last year. The semester leading up to this question was a survey of the animal kingdom from sponges and invertebrates, through vertebrates, including Humans. We learned about some surprisingly intelligent animals including: Octopi and squid; Birds such as the Raven; Mammals such as dolphins, elephants, and chimpanzees. Students were asked to take into account both the similarities and differences between humans and animals, as well as expressing their own views on the question. As always students are required to back up their claims with supporting statements, and readers are cautioned not to blindly accept unsupported claims.
What follows is the teacher's response to this question. One final note: While many religions have dealt with this question either directly or indirectly, the purpose of this essay is to explore the question from a scientific/biological perspective. Differences between humans and animals may seem rather obvious on the surface, but be careful about which attributes we assign exclusively to Homo sapiens (Human beings). Tool use is a good example. For a long time it was believed that humans were the only tool users until Jane Goodall observed chimpanzees fishing termites out of a nest using sticks which they had modified in 1960. Now, numerous examples of tool use are known in the animal kingdom. Another example is language. Humans are definitely the only animals to have invented symbolic (written) language, but there are examples of animals, such as Koko the gorilla, who, along with some other gorillas and chimps, has learned to use human sign language. Many birds, mammals such as whales, and even "lower" animals like honeybees, use very sophisticated languages to communicate with each other. Still, however, no other animals have mastered symbolic language anywhere near the extent humans have. Probably the most visible difference (to an Alien arriving from off-planet) is Human's use of technology, our ability to build things. There are many man-made structures visible from space, and no other animal has had such a profound effect on the Earth's environment in such a short amount of time. Similarities between Humans and animals are many, since, biologically speaking, humans are animals. Our skeletons, internal organs, reproduction, and even our behavior is very similar to other animals. The closer on the evolutionary tree the other animal is to humans the more similarities you will find. This is especially true when we compare Human DNA to that of other animals. For example, Humans share many characteristics with lizards. We have a spine, heart and lungs, 4 limbs, 2 eyes, a jaw with teeth, just like lizards do. But, a lizard is a reptile. We share even more characteristics with other mammals such as a horse. On top of the things we share with lizards, we are warm-blooded (endothermic), we have hair, we produce milk for our young, and we give "live birth" to our babies just like a horse, but not like a lizard. We share approximately 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees (our closest living relatives). In terms of behavior, there are some, perhaps more disturbing similarities between Humans and animals. Getting back to Jane Goodall, whose work with chimps is extremely relevant to this question. Jane went to Zambia in the early 1960s. This was after WWII and during the Vietnam War. Many people held a rather pessimistic view of human nature at this point. Especially since we had now invented a technology (nuclear weapons) capable of wiping out virtually all life on the planet. It was thought that the ability to "wage war" was something only humans did, but then in 1964 Goodall and her team observed some very violent group behavior among the chimps that included murder and even cannibalism. So, in the light of these observations, it seems the tendency towards violence is something we share with animals. If we take away the technology, and simply look at what motivates behavior (territorialism, access to resources, safety, reproduction), the difference between humans and animals all but vanishes, or does it? Humans are not the only animals to display altruistic behavior. Elephants, for example, are known to mourn their dead and put themselves in harm’s way to help another. They have even been known to go out of their way to protect a human from danger (not even a member of their own species!). Will humans take it a step further? Can we set aside our own desires to the degree necessary for the rest of the species on this planet to thrive? So, are Humans special? Different, in some fundamental way from the rest of the Animal Kingdom? Or, are we just somewhat clever animals who have learned a few "tricks"? I must make the argument that the latter is closer to the truth. I know, many of you are not going to like hearing this. I'm certain the majority view is on the side of Humans being special in some way, but I have been looking in to this question for some time now and while the differences between Humans and animals may seem obvious they are often illusory or simply a matter of degree. The similarities between humans and our animal cousins are far more numerous and often hidden. A biologist will be more aware than the average person of these hidden similarities on the internal, cellular, and even chemical level between Humans and the rest of life on this planet. Many, perhaps even most, of you will cling to the notion that Humans are special despite the evidence. Some even go so far as to say that our species is not even from this planet, that we were either brought here or genetically altered by a superior alien species. Most people I ask this question say humans are special, mainly due to our "intelligence". The two main lines of evidence for our superior intelligence are, usually, our use of symbols (language), and our ability to build things (technology). It is precisely in these two areas that, in my view, Humans display not necessarily a superior intelligence, but possibly a deeply flawed intelligence. It would be useful at this point to define intelligence. I would like to use the word intelligence in its highest sense, synonymous with wisdom. What would the Alien-from-off-planet's assessment of our true intelligence be? "Well, they certainly are clever, look at all that technology they've built. However, they seem to have a hard time figuring out which technologies are safe to use. Did you see that Fukushima thing?! And, what about all that hardware they invented just to kill each other with. Look at what they are doing to the ecosystems of the planet. Don't they realize they depend on those for their own survival? They've already caused the extinction of thousands of species. Their population is still increasing, isn't it?" Yes, I'm afraid their assessment would be that we are definitely smart, we can figure things out, but as for true intelligence - not so much. What about our use of symbolic language? Is this a sign of true intelligence? It is impossible to talk about symbols without talking about the organizations that Humans have created through the use of symbolic language. Religion, government, corporations, science and art, are the institutions Humans have created through the use of symbolic language. What use has been made of this unique ability, this ability to communicate at such a detailed and abstract level? Looking at human society objectively, government and religion seem to have the greatest effect on Human life. It is what these institutions have done using symbolic language, combined with technology, and the tendency towards violence that is the primary concern here. The violence Jane Goodall observed among chimpanzees was different from the violence carried out by Humans. The chimps seemed indifferent to it, neither proud nor ashamed of what they had done. They are shown sharing the carcass of another chimp they had killed in the same way they would share bananas. The warfare among the chimps seems to have been motivated by territorialism, an effort to control the resources in an area. When Humans are motivated by their government to engage in violence against their fellow humans they often react in ways that are much different from the way animals deal with violence. Some seem to actually enjoy killing, or are motivated (through the use of symbolic language) to feel it is their duty to kill. They are serving a "higher calling", either to their god or to their government. Sometimes, they are motivated to go far beyond what is necessary in the service of their country, their king, or their god. People celebrate their violence, give awards for it, and take it to grotesque extremes through the use of technology. The point here is that Humankind's use of violence has been enabled to far surpass that which is seen in the animal kingdom through the use of both technology (to increase the scale of the destruction) and symbolic language (to provide the justification for levels of violence that would not otherwise make sense). Humans do have the potential to act on motivations which transcend our "animal" instincts, but the instincts seem to be winning out. We have incredible imagination and creativity. We need to develop more wisdom to go along with our cleverness. And, finally, we must realize that our fate as a species is one and the same as that of the other species we share this planet with. The human species has tremendous power, tremendous potential. The only question is to what use it will be put. Dear Student,
Welcome back to school. I want to share something with you about my philosophy of education. I believe in “student centered” education. There are some things I believe are good for education and other things that are obstacles to education. Sometimes in my job, I am asked to do things and support things which I don’t necessarily believe are good for education. One thing I disagree with is to force people to do things. This is a problem already because in the United States, and most other countries, children are required to go to school. This is called “compulsory” education. Compulsory education is incompatible with truly student centered education. I believe education and learning come from within. You decide that you want to learn about something, and your education begins. A teacher is an expert, someone who can help you learn, only after you have made that decision. Another practice I am uncomfortable with is the excessive testing. I believe my number one “customer” is you, my student. Do you know how you did on the AZ Merit Test last year? A teacher’s first responsibility is to his or her students and their parents. This is what “student centered” education means to me. Most good teachers have their own ways of “testing” students’ progress with the material. This is called assessment. There are many ways to assess learning, testing is only one. Much of this testing is meant for someone else somewhere else, not for you. Look around at the society we are living in. Did you watch the “news”? Are we healthy? What about our environment? How is all this working out for us and the rest of life on the planet? Do we need to educate people to merely fit in to the existing society, the existing governments, the existing corporations, the existing transportation systems, the existing food production, the existing schools? Or, do we need to educate people who are able to think out of the existing box, who can invent better ways of doing things, who can find solutions to problems that have eluded us up to now. In short, people who are able to think for themselves. I want you to think for yourself. So, I hope that you will make the decision to learn. We need you! No, school is not perfect, there are many problems with the system. Yes, you may be asked to do things you don’t like. But, above all, I hope you come to value education, learn about the things you are interested in, and grow to your full potential as a human being. Remember, school and education are not the same thing. I am confident I can speak for the other teachers when I tell you that you are number one. We are here for you, more than anything else. Hope you have an excellent school year, Sincerely, Mr. Ludwig |
AuthorCurrently teaching High School Environmental Science and Biology. Archives
March 2024
Categories
All
|