Earth Jur 1.0

Spain Moves to Recognize "Human" Rights in Great Apes

I have a new respect and admiration for the Spanish people and their parliament.  Last Wednesday, the Spanish Parliament became the first national legislature to support the legal rights of non-humans to life and individual liberty, and the right not to be tortured, when its environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Ape Project (see story).  Apparently, under the new laws, keeping apes for circuses, filming and TV commercials will be a criminal offense. The resolutions have broad support and are expected to become law.

The Great Ape Project was founded in 1993 as an international organization of primatologists, psychologists, ethicists, and other experts who advocate a United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Great Apes that would confer basic legal rights on non-human great apes: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans. The rights suggested are the right to life, the protection of individual liberty, and the prohibition of torture. [Wikipedia]

This feels like one of those thought-I'd-never-see-in-my-lifetime moments. I grew up in the era of Jane Goodall's National Geographic television specials about her work with chimpanzees. I remember learning about Koko, a gorilla taught to communicate with humans using American Sign Language. Then there was the classic film Planet of the Apes, which affected me profoundly as a pre-adolescent. It was probably the first film I watched that made me really start to think about what I'd been taught concerning what separates animals from humans. It was ahead of its time in many ways. One of the movie's great quotes comes from Roddy MacDowell's character, Cornelius, who reads from the sacred scrolls of the apes:

Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.

Maybe Spain's parliamentary resolutions should make us rethink how we regard certain rights as being distinctly "human" in the first place. Wouldn't "natural Earth rights" somehow seem more fundamental and immutable, arising from what it means to be a living sentient creature on this planet, than anything distinctly "human" or man-made (which implies that such rights could just as easily be eliminated at the whim of humans)? Whether Spain's pioneering legislation will be a watershed for similar laws around the world remains to be seen. For now, the Spanish Parliament's action legally recognizing a few natural Earth rights in our great apes makes me feel just a little more . . . human. ¡Viva España!

Persecuting the Monks: Caribbean Seals Officially Extinct

Just in time for the unofficial World Ocean Day, NOAA has announced that the Caribbean monk seals have been declared extinct, and humans were the cause. According to the AP story, "Humans hunting the docile creatures for research, food and blubber left the population unsustainable, say biologists who warn that Hawaiian and Mediterranean monk seals could be the next to go."  Given the geography and the fact that it was during Christopher Columbus' second voyage in 1494 that the Caribbean monk seal was "discovered," we North Americans can probably take primary responsibility for losing this species forever.

Okay, so what are the insights here? A few things come to mind. First, the fact that this official extinction declaration actually made national news in the U.S. should provide an impetus to heighten awareness even more about species losses and their implications. One way would be officially to "martyr" each species that goes extinct by human impacts to the higher cause of Earth sustainability. Maybe renaming obscure streets in our major coastal cities as "Monk Seal Boulevard" would be a bit extreme, along with starting a new trend of "Caribbean Monk" names for elementary, middle and high schools across the nation. But national legislation to officially commemorate any species forced into extinction by humans might might be appropriate -- not with a government and bank holiday, but to encourage schools and the appropriate interest groups, along with NOAA and similar agencies, to sponsor events to educate the public.

Second, we can model good behavior in species sustainability management. We now have the opportunity to save two other species of monk seals, one of which is under U.S. dominion in Hawaii. It won't bring back the Caribbean monks, but it gives us the chance to learn from our mistakes and stop similar losses in the future. Apparently, NOAA's Fisheries Service already has a monk seal recovery plan developed for the Hawaiian monk seals, which are at risk from entanglement in marine debris, climate change and coastal development. The Ocean Conservancy specifically focuses on such threats to ocean species and their habitats through four critical objectives that are strategic priorities: (1) restore sustainable American fisheries; (2) protect wildlife from human impacts; (3) conserve special ocean places; and (4) reform government for better ocean stewardship.

Third, we can make it personal by just doing even a few things that might help, like:

• Sign the petition to the United Nations to make June 8 World Ocean Day, which has been an unofficial celebration of the oceans around the world for 12 years;
• Participate in the Ocean Conservancy's action initiatives;
• Make smart seafood choices that support healthy and abundant oceans.

The Looming Polar Bear War

The storm clouds of a legal war are gathering, according to a recent article in Mother Jones. On one side are wildlife preservation advocates and those concerned about the impacts of global warming who are backing the petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On the other are various interests supported by ExxonMobil and land developer groups, now fronted by such organizations as the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), a long-time civil rights group increasingly aligned with conservative activists, according to Mother Jones.

The battle lines suggest the usual modern post-industrial conflict pitting environmental protection and preservation against the clearly unsustainable model for harvesting limited natural resources like oil and gas, which is driven by the short-term profit motive of public companies. What is different this time is the civil rights spin on the socio-economic argument that the increasing costs of exploiting and developing limited resources like oil and gas in ways that must also protect polar bears will result in higher prices passed on to consumers, which disproportionately hurts the poor and racial minorities, the argument goes. In the U.S., where $4 per gallon gasoline prices have created a new reality to which Americans are having to adjust, this new spin -- however transparent -- may just resonate with law-makers and consumers. High fuel costs directly impact the average person, but not the absence of polar bears.

Precisely for these reasons, of course, the public policy deck is stacked against the polar bears in the legislative and executive branches. The Bush Administration, encouraged by business interests, has been dragging its feet on rendering a decision on the ESA petition while licensing rights to explore for oil in polar bear habitat, as the Mother Jones article reports:

In January, the Fish and Wildlife Service missed its deadline for issuing a decision, while the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service almost simultaneously announced plans to auction off oil- and gas-exploration leases in the Chukchi Sea, the very heart of polar bear country. This move was seen as no accident by environmentalists, and was sharply criticized by Barbara Boxer, the chair of the Senate's environment and public works committee.

Chuck Cushman, founder of the American Land Rights Association, is quoted as saying, "We have to keep in mind that people are an important species too. Instead of a radical regulatory regime, we have to have a moderate, gradual swing." Of course, like any progressive problem -- whether we're talking about human health or Earth health, the longer you wait to address it, the more "radical" the solution may need to be to correct it.  So, in what amounts to a government-corporate squeeze play, government helps oil and gas interests by stalling as the incumbent energy, mining and developer interests caution that we need to go slow because of the human economic impact. All the while, global warming worsens, more arctic ice melts, more polar bears are lost, and the cost of remediating global warming and saving the declining polar bear population continues to escalate until it just seems too steep to fund.

And so, with the incumbent oil, gas, mining and development interests easily buying influence with Congress and the regulators to maintain the status quo, the courts are left as the main battleground. And the polar bear thus becomes the chief symbol for a potential turning point because the petition to list it as an endangered species under the ESA was one of the first to link the fate of a species with greenhouse gas emissions. As the Mother Jones article puts it: "It was no accident. If the petition succeeds, it could prompt a wholesale shift in federal climate-change policy, potentially forcing a wide array of industries nationwide, and the energy sector in particular, into compliance with the ESA."

The fact is that the current dominant economic model for the energy industry, and the legal systems that support it, still are based on Earth's destruction. Popular media stories cast the conflict in terms of tree-huggers versus greedy and heartless business titans or, as in the Mother Jones article, partisan liberal (pro-environment) versus conservative (pro-business) political agendas. But both characterizations are misleading, divisive and divert our attention from the real conflict: we humans, as one of many Earth species, have put ourselves squarely in opposition not to each other but to the Earth itself, its other species, and its natural self-regulating geologic and atmospheric cycles. And so the polar bear, as a symbol of the Earth and its natural cycles, will have its day in court.

In this American presidential election year, the two leading candidates are touting themselves as agents of "change." We'll see what kind of real change the victor brings to this issue, and if it includes more closely aligning American government environmental and business policy with the Earth and its cycles. If not, and depending on how the polar bear legal war unfolds, we can be assured that a different kind of change from the Earth itself is coming; it is already in motion.

Bee Loss Update: 1.1 Million Colonies Died This Winter

As an update to my original post on the catastrophic losses of Western honey bees . . .

In The Beekeeper blog, Kim Flottum, editor of Bee Culture magazine, reports on the results of a recent survey conducted by the Apiary Inspectors of America in January and February this year that gathered information from 18% of the colonies in the U.S.  Although the survey initially suggested that about 35% of all U.S. colonies died this past winter, the survey was done before winter snows had melted, and Flottum suggests that the adjusted loss is closer to 44% -- which translates to 1.1 million colonies, or "just shy of what’s needed for almond pollination next spring."

Based on the survey, the mortality causes break down as follows: 71% died of natural causes; and 29% from symptoms suspected to be colony collapse disorder. Even assuming the lower 35% mortality rate initially-reported, that would mean at least 10% of all the bees in the U.S. last year died of Colony Collapse Disorder.  Flottum goes on to report on the analysis of suspected causes of CCD to date based on the survey data.

Both the U.S. Senate and House have bills pending -- S.1694 (Boxer) and H.R.1709 (Hastings) -- that would authorize resources for sustained research and analysis to address colony collapse disorder and the decline of North American pollinators. The House bill was referred to House Committee on Agriculture; the Senate bill is in the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Are Chemical Trespass Laws Needed for Household Pets?

Do you think dogs regard humans as "Dog's best friend"?  Somehow, I doubt it, especially in light of a recent report from the Environmental Working Group. EWG calls their report "the most comprehensive investigation of the chemical body burden of companion animals conducted to date, with 23 chemicals reported in pets for the first time."  They say it reinforces "findings from prior studies showing that pets’ unique behaviors may place them at risk for elevated exposures and health risks from chemical pollutants in the home and outdoors, in air, water, food, soil, and consumer products for people and pets."

EWG's study sought to investigate the extent of contaminant exposure pets face in homes and outdoor environments. What it revealed was disturbing:

Dogs and cats were contaminated with 48 of 70 industrial chemicals tested, including 43 chemicals at levels higher than those typically found in people, according to our study of plastics and food packaging chemicals, heavy metals, fire retardants, and stain-proofing chemicals in pooled samples of blood and urine from 20 dogs and 37 cats collected at a Virginia veterinary clinic.

Average levels of many chemicals were substantially higher in pets than is typical for people, with 2.4 times higher levels of stain- and grease-proof coatings (perfluorochemicals) in dogs, 23 times more fire retardants (PBDEs) in cats, and more than 5 times the amounts of mercury, compared to average levels in people found in national studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and EWG.

The problem with these various chemicals is that they are toxins linked to serious health effects -- associated with cancer, reproductive system problems, neurological diseases -- in other studies from laboratory data or human populations. For most of the chemicals included in the current study, the health risks to pets specifically have not been studied. (They're just animals, right?)

About the best you can say from this report is that we don't seem to be treating our household pets any worse than we treat the youngest humans:

Pets face chemical exposures that in some ways are similar to those of infants and toddlers, who have limited diets and play close to the floor and put their hands and household objects in their mouths far more often than adults. For pets as for children, exposures are greater and the resulting health risks are higher (Betts 2007).

But if knowledge gives rise to responsibility, then might such chemical exposure rise to the level of passive abuse, and possibly even civil and criminal liability, if there is a causal connection between the chemicals and illness or injury?  So, who has the knowledge of what potentially toxic chemicals are in your home furniture, upholstery, pillows, mattress pads, comforters, carpets, and drapes -- and even televisions and electronics? The manufacturers, of course. And the manufacturers don't label their products with chemical composition because they are not required to.

So, what are the government regulators doing about this situation, besides not requiring labeling and not requiring health warnings like they do on cigarette packages!?  First, the government is actually requiring flame-retardant household furniture and bedding in the first place!  In California, for example, all furniture is required to meet a flammability standard mandating that foam withstand an open flame for twelve seconds -- a de facto standard in other states also followed by some national manufacturers throughout the US. Second, regulatory agencies appear to be moving forward with stricter flammability standards for pillows, mattress pads, and comforters. (See tv news story.)

Of course, it is easy to defend the government's efforts to make household furnishings less flammable as one way of protecting human life and property in the home, which incidentally includes household pets. But flammability is only one home safety concern; chemical toxicity is another. And one shouldn't be traded against the other, at least not without a very thoughtful and deliberate weighing and mitigating of ALL safety risks.

One model chemical trespass ordinance affirms that citizens "possess a fundamental and inalienable right to the integrity of their bodies, and thus, have a right to be free from unwanted chemical invasions of their bodies" (see Section 6 of CELDF's Corporate Chemical Trespass Ordinance ). Shouldn't that right really extend to all creatures, especially those we invite into our homes and lives as members of our families to be trusted and faithful companions?  We often entrust our pet dogs with the responsibility to guard and protect our families?  Shouldn't they be able to trust us to protect them in return?

In the context of better assessing the health impacts of potentially toxic chemicals in the home, some scientists are regarding pets as "sentinels for human health." "Sentinals"?! That sounds like a euphemism for the domestic version of the laboratory test animal.  Is that being a good steward?  Is that any way to treat a best friend?

Endorse the Earth Charter for Earth Day!

The Earth Charter is one of the most remarkable documents I've ever read. It reminds me of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence in the sense that I can feel a sacred intention of the authors when I read the words. In today's culture, words have become so devalued that they often appear to be the lowest common denomination of social currency. Too often they are empty of any real meaning. Too infrequently do they serve to ennoble and uplift. But the words of the Earth Charter are different; they have real power and a potential to change hearts and minds. Those words remind us of who we can be if we make the choice, and "decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities," as the Preamble below suggests.

I chose to become an "Endorser" of the Earth Charter -- any individual or organization can do so online with just a few mouse clicks -- on my father's birthday. I didn't set out to do it then. But it is fitting that I did it on that day because, as I wrote him in a card, he is the one who gave me a deep reverence, respect and sense of responsibility for the natural world in which we live, for what some call simply, "Nature." Most people think of Nature as "out there" in the great outdoors, the wilds, protected forests and wilderness areas and great parklands. But Nature is "in here" as well as "out there." So, too, the Earth is us and everything inside and outside us.

I urge everyone, if you do nothing else for lack of time or money or opportunity to commemorate Earth Day, to log onto The Earth Charter Initiative web site and become an Endorser. In so doing, you agree to "embrace the spirit and aims of the document. . . [and] pledge to join the global partnership for a just, sustainable, and peaceful world and to work for the realization of the values and principles of the Earth Charter."

The Preamble sets the tone, concerned yet hopeful and determined, for the 16 principles that are the heart of the Charter. The Preamble is an invocation, a call, to all of us. I invite you to heed it:

PREAMBLE
We stand at a critical moment in Earth's history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

Earth, Our Home
Humanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community of life. The forces of nature make existence a demanding and uncertain adventure, but Earth has provided the conditions essential to life's evolution. The resilience of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile soils, pure waters, and clean air. The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all peoples. The protection of Earth's vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust.

The Global Situation
The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

The Challenges Ahead
The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

Universal Responsibility
To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.

We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

       

Salmon Swan Song?

In the opening scenes of the science fiction comedy The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the dolphins are escaping the Earth because it is about to be destroyed as they sing "thanks for all the fish!" Now, it seems, the fish are mysteriously disappearing.

An AP story today  reports a "stunning collapse" of California's chinook salmon population (also known as King Salmon), which is one of the biggest wild salmon runs on the West Coast. According to the report, there were 90,000 salmon in California's Central Valley last year as compared with 775,000 as recently as 2002!  The wildlife experts are stating that this is below the level necessary for sustainability.  The news has even the fishermen -- already having a tough year -- calling for a complete shutdown of salmon fishing off the California and Oregon coasts.  The Pacific Fishery Management Council, charged with regulating Pacific Coast fisheries, will meet this week to determine what action to take, which likely will be one of three options:

• a total ban on salmon fishing off California and Oregon coasts;
• severely limited fishing only in designated areas;
• catch-and-release fishing for scientific research purposes.

The real challenge is determining the cause of the precipitous decline. Apparently, there are 46 possible reasons or contributing factors that are suspected, including both man-made (water diversions, habitat destruction, dam operations, agricultural pollution) and natural causes (marine predators, ocean conditions).

The chinook and other salmon are highly valued in Native American tribal culture and spirituality (see http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/fishing/regional/enveducation/stories/native.pdf). While science tries to gather sufficient evidence to reach its own conclusions, we might learn something by asking the keepers of ancient Pacific west coast wisdom: why are the salmon leaving us?

UPDATE 4/11/08: The Pacific Fishery Management Council yesterday adopted the most restrictive salmon fisheries in the history for the West Coast, in response to the unprecedented collapse of Sacramento River fall Chinook and the exceptionally poor status of coho salmon from Oregon and Washington. The Council adopted a complete closure of commercial and sport Chinook fisheries off California and most of Oregon and allowed only a 9,000 fishery for hatchery coho only off Central and southern Oregon. The recommendation will be forwarded to the National Marine Fisheries Service for approval by May 1, 2008.

“The reason for the sudden decline of Sacramento River fish is a mystery at this time,” said Council Executive Director Don McIsaac. “The only thing that can be done in the short term is to cut back the commercial and recreational fishing seasons to protect the remaining fish. The longer-term solution will involve a wide variety of people, agencies, and organizations. But for now, unfortunately, those involved in the salmon fisheries are paying the price.”

The Symbolic Power of Earth Hour

When I first heard of Earth Hour, it struck me as a somewhat naive and misguided social event for bringing awareness to the issue of climate change. The whole idea of turning out the lights for an hour as a "gesture" for taking action to reduce carbon emissions seems similar to the idea of making a charitable donation at year-end as a "gesture" for taking action on the charitable cause of one's choice. Little is asked of us; in neither case is a change of on-going behavior required. Both actions use enlightened self-interest in the form of a personal economic reward to participate

But earlier today, I saw a news story about Google's home page going "black" as its way of shining the light of awareness on Earth Hour. And then it struck me that the most important decisions in our culture today seem to be based increasingly on symbols that are media-driven. I clicked over to Google's home page, and there it was! The black background was definitely dramatic, and a specific call to action was only one click away: "you can do something to reduce the energy consumption of your home PC by joining the Climate Savers Computing Initiative." Simple. And powerfully symbolic.

At first, some of the online criticism of Google for not doing something more substantive (like perhaps taking their site offline for an hour?) seemed compelling. But there would be no symbolic message in that. Users would just assume/fear that Google was actually down, and THAT would be the story getting the attention! So, what about just a flat html page with the links to Climate Savers Computing Initiative? They could have done that. But then those Google users who became interested and curious would not be able to learn more by using the search engine, and perhaps an opportunity to engage them when they were most open to it would be lost. It will be interesting to see how Earth Hour ranks in Google Trends (as of this posting "earth hour chicago" and "lights out" were #14 and #28, respectively) as Earth Hour quickly approaches the West Coast of the U.S.

Will Earth Hour make a difference in terms of changing public policy and laws to require greater due diligence in considering the impacts of certain behaviors on the climate and the world's inhabitants -- all  of them?  So far, rational appeals based on logic and science have failed to do so. Maybe the modern version of a flower placed in the muzzle of a rifle is exactly the kind of symbol we need now.

Renaming and Reclaiming Sacred Nature

The Center for Earth Jurisprudence and the Barry University Law Review recently sponsored a symposium, "Framing an Earth Jurisprudence for a Planet in Peril." For those of us who were unable to attend, the videos of the presentations are now posted on the CEJ site. One of the videos that I watched with great interest was the presentation by Winona LaDuke, an Ojibwe activist and author, entitled, Indigenous Tenets for an Era of Climate Change.

Ms. LaDuke reviewed such tenets of indigenous legal thinking as:

• the "Creator's Law" as higher than the laws of nation states or municipalities;
• the people belong to the land, not the land to the people, as in U.S. and other western laws;
• the basis of the Creator's Law in a spiritual tradition that is not one of commemoration, as some have characterized Judeo-Christian religion, but rather of reaffirmation of indigenous people's relationship with all of creation and with place (sacredness of place being a very important teaching);
• "we are all related," as embracing fundamental reverence for all life, all beings;
• "all things that are natural are cyclical;" even the water in our bodies is connected with the cycle of water falling from the sky, melting from snow, flowing in rivers, evaporating, etc.;
• most elements of nature are considered to be animate; and
• "give when you take," as reflecting what anthropologists have referred to as "reciprocity."

These tenets and others she mentioned were not new to me, and they are not inconsistent with how I try to live. What challenged me, however, was how Ms. Duke -- who is Harvard-educated -- pointed out the insidiousness of western language and naming as undermining, devaluing and disrespecting the culture and spiritual traditions of indigenous peoples. With wry humor, she confessed one of her peeves was the American cultural penchant for "naming big mountains after small men." One particular example she mentioned within the Ojibwe territory was Mt. McKay, near Thunder Bay, Ontario -- known to her people as "Thunder Mountain," which plays a central role in their spiritual beliefs, traditions and ceremonies.

Her example immediately brought to mind my last visit to a nearby state reserve that has preserved a grove of ancient coast redwood trees. The state reserve web site simply states, "The Grove offers solace from the hustle and bustle of daily life, offering the onlooker great inspiration and a place for quiet reflection."

But the first time I walked into this grove of ancient redwoods, I could feel the sacred power of the trees immediately. The oldest tree in the grove is estimated to be more than 1400 years old!  And it shifted my entire being into a very deep and timeless place, stopping my thoughts entirely, yards before I stood at the base of its massive trunk. Looking up that 300-foot trunk, I knew that I was a very small man indeed standing at the foot of a very grand and old being. With my relatively few decades of experience in this world, I had no concept of what this amazing being must have witnessed, weathered, and overcome -- and what other countless beings it had protected and nourished -- through the centuries. And the chances are pretty good, unless we really ruin things quickly, that this grand old being will still be teaching other small men long after I am dust.

This ancient and magnificent being is named "Colonel Armstrong" after "a lumberman who preserved this portion of the park in the 1870's," according to the state reserve's web site. Did this poor old giant redwood really have no name, no identity, until only the last 130 or so of its 1400 years on this Earth?!  If you ask me, "Armstrong" sounds like a made-up Bunyanesque name for a "lumberman" anyway.

And what kind of logic is there in naming something sacred and venerable for some nobody who could have destroyed it but didn't? Today in various parts of the world we have real examples of oppressive regimes where temples and ancient sacred relics and icons are systematically destroyed. So, if some "Colonel" happens to say, "Okay, I feel like sparing this one today," does it then merit a renaming in his honor? What kind of commemoration or reaffirmation tradition is that part of, exactly?

And so the venerable being now known as Colonel Armstrong was named, and in naming claimed, by a commerce-oriented legal system that also often describes forests in terms of "board feet of lumber," as Ms. LaDuke points out -- a commercial by-product -- rather than with words that attempt to articulate the kind of profound wordless experiences they create.  I can attest that no mere board feet of lumber pushed me into a deep inner silence in that grove any more than units of harvestable human organs and stem cells founded the world's major religions.

This is only my small local example of what I think Ms. LaDuke was describing in her remarks a few weeks ago. Still, for me, it reveals a very simple, yet effective, principle of reductionism in our contemporary dominant culture when it comes to naming some of the most powerful and ineffable mysteries of nature.

Names given to great mountains, canyons, lakes, rivers, trees and other wondrous manifestations of the natural world reveal, or betray, the true values of the namer. In today's world, this kind of naming or description ultimately can be an insidious form of propaganda that diverts us -- all of us -- from accessing a deeper ancient knowledge and wisdom about ourselves and the mysterious natural world we are honored to be a part of for our short time here. 

The good news is that indigenous peoples and others are beginning to "rename and reclaim" some of the sacred places in the world. Mount McKinley, the highest mountain in the U.S., was named in 1896 for the former governor of Ohio, William McKinley, who later became President. But in 1980, when the Denali National Park and Preserve was established, the Alaska Board of Geographic Names officially changed the mountain's name back to Denali, which in the Athabaskan language means "the great one."

Similarly, the landmark mountain in Central Australia that has been sacred to aboriginal people was known as Uluru until 1873, when a surveyor renamed it Ayers Rock after the then-Chief Secretary of South Australia.  However, since 1993, a dual-naming policy has been in effect which allows official names that represent both the traditional Aboriginal name and the English name, and the sacred mountain is now officially known as Uluru/Ayers Rock.  Such a government policy might have a healing effect in other countries with a tragic history regarding its indigenous peoples while revealing ancient values, and perhaps greater knowledge and insights, to all of its people.

Are Humans Drugging Wildlife?

It's bad enough that our generation of the species looks first to a pill for solutions to almost all physical, mental and emotional problems. Even a fairly large segment of what is considered "alternative" or "holistic" medicine pushes pills in the form of vitamin and mineral supplements. Ironically, a holistic doctor -- an actual M.D. -- was the one who first told me that, despite the fact that the label of my primary daily supplement recommended 9 tablets per day, one was quite sufficient; the rest was contributing to the phenomenon that "Americans have the most expensive urine in the world." And often, along with the unmetabolized drugs that go into the sewer system, drugs that are not even consumed by humans get flushed down the toilet in their original form.

Now comes word that our craving for pills, and particularly prescription drugs, is creating a "trickle-down" effect on the environment. It has now contaminated the water supply. An Associated Press investigation has revealed that "A vast array of pharmaceuticals -- including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones -- have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans."  Of course. And while the amounts are miniscule -- far below prescribed therapeutic dosages for humans, the persistent effects over decades of consuming these drugs in our daily water intake are unknown. However, researchers have found alarming effects on wildlife from pharmaceutical contamination:

[P]harmaceuticals in waterways are damaging wildlife across the nation and around the globe, research shows. Notably, male fish are being feminized, creating egg yolk proteins, a process usually restricted to females. Pharmaceuticals also are affecting sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life -- such as earthworms in the wild and zooplankton in the laboratory, studies show.

The failure seems to be the lack of adequate regulation of pharmaceutical levels in water in terms of mandatory standardized testing, monitoring, reporting and remediation. The federal government has not required testing, nor established any safety limits for levels of pharmaceuticals in water. Up to 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts have been found in Philadelphia's treated drinking water; and 63 were identified in the city's watershed. Drugs also permeate deep underground aquifers. Well water in rural areas and bottled water, much of which comes from municipal tap water sources, are not pharmaceutical free, either.

And it isn't just a U.S. problem, according to the AP report. The waters of Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe show pharmaceutical contamination:

[F]rom the icy streams of England to the wild game reserves of South Africa -- snails, fish, even antelope, are showing signs of possible pharmaceutical contamination. For example, fish and prawn in China exposed to treated wastewater had shortened life spans, Pacific oysters off the coast of Singapore had inhibited growth, and in Norway, Atlantic salmon exposed to levels of estrogen similar to those found in the North Sea had severe reproductive problems.

The entire population of a common vulture in Pakistan almost disappeared because the birds were eating carcasses of cows that had been treated with an anti-inflammatory drug. The drug was shutting down their kidneys.

Mainstream media reports of this latest human behavioral impact on the environment are just now starting to connect all of the dots here. Water sustains all life forms. And the natural order of the food chain requires that some life forms continually consume other life forms -- fruits, vegetables and meat for humans, alone -- all needing and metabolizing water that very likely is pharmaceutically-contaminated.  Meanwhile, pharmaceuticals are not the sole water-soluble contaminant that we now know poses a threat to the world's plants and animals (humans included). So, the problem of pharmaceuticals in the water supply is additive, creating a compounding effect with the pesticides, oil spills, airborne contaminants that precipitate out, etc. -- impacting all life. The clear implication is that government regulators cannot purport to protect public health and welfare by establishing standards for pharmaceutical levels in water that ignore the existence of other water contaminants.

At this point, the term "organic" as applied to any part of the food chain should be viewed as a very relative, if not relatively meaningless, term.