Category Archives: Uncategorized

Lonesome George To Be Embalmed

Spread the love

I’m not sure if it is really called “embalmed” when done to a tortoise, but it is the same idea. Lonesome George was a Galapagos Tortoise, Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii, who was known for some time a the last living individual of his subspecies. He lived on Pinta Island in the Galapagos. He died on my birthday last year at the age of “more than 100 years old.” These tortoises numbered over a quarter of a million a few centuries to just a few thousand today.

The latest news is that George will be embalmed, or preserved, at the Museum of Natural History in New York City and returned to the Galapagos at a later time.

A 2007 study of the genetics of Galapagos Tortoises (with this followup) suggests that George is not really the last of his kind. There are over a dozen others! It turns out that the tortoises on this particular island are genetically diverse and have relatives on other islands, as a result of natural and human-caused dispersal of the animals.


Spread the love

Does Fracking Mess Up our Water Supply?

Spread the love

Fracking, or Hydraulic Fracturing, is a method of extracting hard-to-get oil and gas from shale. For the most part, fossil fuels originally formed in shale, which was in turn laid down by near surface life in anoxic seas. Sunlight powered a high turnover of near surface plankton, algae, and bacteria, but oxygen-poor conditions just a little deeper in the sea made it unlikely for much of that life to be recycled through other life forms. So, during periods of anoxic seas, which lasted for millions of years now and then in earth history, much of that organic material from near the surface of the ocean settled into the sea floor mud where it became buried and incorporated into the growing layers of sediment. This was eventually transformed into oil and gas rich shale. (For a detailed overview of that aspect of earth history, see this fascinating book.) Eventually, some of that oil and gas collected in deposits that could be easily removed through drilling. Once this oil and gas is removed, however, the remaining hydrocarbon fuels are much more thinly distributed in the shale. In order to access this fuel, modern day miners pump water mixed with sand and chemicals at high pressure into the shale, which causes it to fracture, allowing the gas and oil to accumulate and become more easily removed. It is a little like squeezing a few drops of the water out of a mostly dry sponge…

Read the rest here.


Spread the love

Minnesota Same Sex Marriage Bill

Spread the love

The Republican dominated Minnesota Legislature got almost nothing done over the last two years that they were in power. But they did manage to put two boneheaded constitutional amendments on the ballot for last November, one to restrict voting rights in a way that Republicans would have a better chance of winning, the other making it unconstitutional for same sex couples to marry. Same sex marriage was already illegal in the state, but the GOP saw the handwriting on the wall and knew that this legal restriction would not last, so they imposed the amendment on us.

Both of those amendments were resoundingly defeated by the good people of Minnesota. And now, there is a bill before the Democratic Party ruled legislature that would allow same sex marriage if it is passed.

Of note: Many religious organizations came out in recent committee hearings on both sides of the issue, but Minnesota Atheists took a different tact. They came out in favor of the bill, but noted that this is not a religious issue at all. August Berkshire of Minnesota Atheist provided the following moving testimony:

Minnesota Atheists Testifies in Favor of Marriage Equality

(Testimony by August Berkshire, representing Minnesota Atheists, at a Minnesota House Civil Law Committee hearing, in favor of the bill HF 1054, changing state law to allow for marriage equality. March 12, 2013, 6:00 p.m. The bill passed the committee on a 10-7 party line vote – Democrats for, Republicans against. The 9 p.m. “FOX at 9” local TV news on channel 9 reported that the bill’s “supporters ranged from Catholics to atheists.” Earlier that day a companion bill passed a Minnesota Senate committee. The bill now moves to the full legislature, which will vote on it after they have passed a budget.)

Thank you, Mr. Chair; Committee Members. My name is August Berkshire and I represent Minnesota Atheists, our state’s oldest, largest, and most active atheist organization.

We view this as a matter of separation of church and state. It can be confusing because the same word, “marriage,” is used for both a civil contract and a religious ceremony. But we must keep in mind that these are two separate things.

Today you may hear testimony from some people that their god is in favor of same-sex marriage, and testimony from other people that their god is opposed to same-sex marriage. Fortunately, that’s not a debate you have to resolve. Government laws must have a secular basis.

The best secular arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and the fact that long-term relationships, gay or straight, help to stabilize society.

In our opinion, there are no secular arguments against same-sex marriage that hold up to scrutiny. Many of these arguments were also used 50 years ago to oppose interracial marriage.

I would like to end on a personal note. My partner, Rachel, and I are heterosexuals and we have been together for 17 years. We are both atheists, and so we will not be getting married in a church, synagogue, or mosque. Instead, we will seek a judge to perform a civil marriage ceremony.

However, we will not get married until it is legal for everyone, because how can we stand up in front of family and friends, some of whom happen to be gay and lesbian, on what is supposed to be the happiest day of our lives, knowing that this happiness is not available to them as well?

So please pass this pro-marriage bill and make civil marriage available to everyone. Thank you.

If you want to sign a petition to encourage the legislature to do the right thing, visit the newly redesigned Minnesota Progressive Project web site and look for the petition on the right sidebar.


Spread the love

Minnesota Progressive Project: New Layout and a Petition

Spread the love

As you know, I write now and then for the Minnesota Progressive Project. I should do more there, I know, and I try. But anyway, the MPP has a new blog layout which preserves the Kos-esque diary thingie but loads faster and is easier to navigate, with a few cool “discoverability” features that link readers to writing about key issues and candidates. Please go check it out.

While you are there check out the right sidebar for a place to click to sign a petition to encourage our state legislature to support same sex marriage by passing a bill that is right now before them.


Spread the love

Your World View May Be Wrong

Spread the love

In response to a comment on my blog, I issued a snarky tweet (and repeated it on Facebook) to the effect that if your argument involves the phrase “World View” you might be wrong. This led to a number of light hearted but snarky, and often helpful, responses on Facebook and Twitter indicating that the term “World View” could mean a lot of different things, such as opinion, paradigm, or point of view. So I thought I’d expand on the concept a bit. In short, “World View” does not mean any of those things, and is in fact a term with a very weighty and rather specific meaning.

The term is an English translation of the German “Weltanschauung.” I’ll leave it to the philosophers reading this to discuss the meaning of that term and its history. When I refer to the term I am talking about the way it is used today in arguments about evolution, creationism, and possibly matters related to religion. In this area of discussion, World View (or Worldview, if you like) is a lot like Steven Gould’s “Magisteria” but mostly it is a simple dog whistle.

Paradigms are general ways of approaching a related set of problems, with a number of agreed upon assumptions, accepted facts, and widely accepted models for how things work. People with different paradigms recognize, or should recognize, that their differences are resolvable with more information. Or, everyone may have the same paradigm and then over time the ruling paradigm is challenged from various sources, and finally overturned in the famous Kuhnian Paradigm Shift. Which has probably happened very few times the way Kuhn described it, leading us to consider the possibility that the Kuhnian paradigm of paradigm shifting has … shifted. Anyway, that’s paradigm.

Point of view is a bit different. Multiple points of view may exist at the same time even with a commonly held set of assumptions and a common knowledge base. But people can have different points of view because of the way they prioritize various parts of the problem. For instance, we can all have and hold the same basic facts about nature and human-nature interactions, but some will see nature as a source of human usable resources while others will see humans as an invasive and damaging species that needs to be controlled for the benefit of nature. Different points of view.

I first grappled with the concept of World View while working with my friend Mischa Penn in developing courses on race and racism for high school teachers. Like Gould’s non-overlapping Magisteria, World Views are different sets of assumptions that are a) not resolvable and b) lack possible resolution because everyone agrees you can’t and don’t need to. This is an important distinction. Two different religions may have two different savior-messiah entities, each purported to be the messiah to the exclusion of others. But that can’t be true. The belief in each messiah excludes belief in the others. People living together in a single society with these two messiahs can not resolve this difference. I won’t go into the World View issue in relation to race and racism as that would involve too much work for a mere blog post, and a careful reading of a great deal of literature in Spanish. But in the area of evolution vs. creationism the meaning is obvious. Science is a world view. Evangelical fundamentalist Christianity is a different world view. Individuals can have both sets of beliefs mixed up in their brains, but really, the two are in fact utterly irreconcilable.

When an argument is advanced that “I’m OK, and You’re OK” but we have different world views, or even “I hate you” and we have different World Views, the interlocutor is saying that it is possible to describe the world around us in two different but irresolvable ways. When I hear that from creationists, what I really hear is “I’ve run out of way to argue that the science is wrong, please don’t hurt me.” When I hear this from scientists, what I really hear is “your religion is wrong, science rules, but I can’t say that out loud and also go to Thanksgiving Dinner with my family.”

There are no valid alternate World Views. If there are two World Views competing in a certain conversation, one is wrong. They could both be wrong, of course, but not if one of them is science.

“World View” … the dog whistle that says “I know you’re right, please don’t hurt me.”


Spread the love

Meet to talk about Meat

Spread the love

This is an event some of you in the Twin Cities may be interested in attending

Viewing of American Meat at the Bell Museum

“A fabulous panel of dedicated agri-food issue talkers have agreed to walk us through this conversation with the film’s director after the film, all with tremendous credentials relating to supportive critique of issues we need to face in the food system (panel listed below!)”

Wednesday, March 13, 6 p.m. Reception, 7 p.m. Film with panel discussion to follow

Bell Museum Auditorium, free and open to the public

Panel:
Jan Joannides, of Renewing the Countryside, is a key liaison between sustainable farmers and the Univesity of Minnesota via Minnesota Institute of Sustainable Agriculture, which is hosting this screening

John Mesko changed his life to become a farmer and along the way became the Executive Director of Sustainable Farming Association of Minnesota

Tracey Singleton is a member of the Homegrown Minneapolis Food Council and owner of the Birchwood Café

Julia Frost Nerbonne is the director of the Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs programs in Environmental Sustainability, Environment and Agriculture, and Agriculture and Justice and faculty in the U of M’s Sustainability Studies program

Graham Meriwether is the director of American Meat and of Leave It Better, a film production company committed to telling solutions-oriented stories about environmental challenges.

Facilitated by Laura Hedlund, co-host of Food Freedom Radio, 8-9am on AM950, the Progressive Voice of Minnesota

American Meat looks at chicken, hog and cattle production in America and is being screened as part of a food and agriculture miniseries brought to you by: the Agri-Food Reading Group, The Institute for Global Studies, The Institute for Advanced Study, The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, The Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and the Bell Museum of Natural History.

A bit of American Meat:


Spread the love

Gun Ownership is Way Down in the US

Spread the love

Gun ownership rates in the US have been declining in recent decades. The National Rifle Association has started to produce denialist rhetoric to obscure this well documented fact. One of the reasons there is less gun ownership is because of changes in the demography of the US population; Angry white men whose recent ancestors were angry white men are declining in numbers and less paranoid and less violent browninsh people often with recent ancestors from other, non gun-happy countries are becoming more common.

You’ve heard about the rush to buy guns that happens every time Obama mentions firearms, or every time a bunch of babies are slaughtered in a school (the idea being that such an event will cause the rest of the country to consider backing off on our national worship of deadly weapons). These things do seem to happen but they are not as large scale as the press seems to tell us and consist almost entirely of angry white males who already own guns using an available excuse to squander more of their household income on their toys.

The gun ownership rate has dropped across all regions of the country and across a wide range of demographics from about 50% in the 1970s to about 35% now. In 1970, about 44% of Americans where white males. In the present year, that number is closer to 35%. In other words, the same guys are holding on to their guns, more or less, as the rest of the country changes. It won’t be long before the number of people who care about protecting gun ownership, for their own personal reasons, will be small enough that a constitutional amendment to repeal the second amendment and replace it with something useful will be a possibility. For instance, we could get rid of the “well regulated militia” thing and replace it with an amendment that says that the Armed Services and federal police can’t treat US Citizens like they weren’t US Citizens. (Eventually one would hope that we would also stop treating non citizens like non citizens as well, but one step at a time.)

Anyway, the gun ownership study is summarized here.


Spread the love

So, what do you think about de-extinction?

Spread the love

John Platt has a nice summary of recent activity in the are of de-extinction. This is where you use modern genetic techniques to bring species that are extinct back into existence.

I find it interesting that casual talk about this sort of thing almost always starts out with things like de-extinction very large and very long extinct, and I’m sure, very expensive to take care of creatures like dinosaurs or wooly mammoths. People in the de-extinction business (and there are some, and there have even been some efforts carried out) are more realistic, of course.

I’ve always said we should start by cloning something that is not extinct, from its remains. Start with the dumpster behind a KFC and see if we can get a chicken. (If it turns out to not be a chicken, that’s another matter.) After doing that a few times, try cloning something that has a living ecological analog: The Quagga, for instance. They went extinct recently and are basically a variant of a zebra (though a different species). Then if that works look into endemic recently extinct animals such as the dodo.

After that, we can sit down and talk mammoths and passenger pigeons.


Spread the love