Gorillas in the Myth: second edition

I’ve just released a second edition of my first book, “revisited and revised a smidgeon.” Here’s a timely excerpt, written more than ten years ago.

The crystal plummets

Raving tree huggers, myself included, sometimes claim we may be destroying planet Earth. Pie-eyed techno-idiots insist that everything will be peachy if we just dump environmental regulations and the Endangered Species Act, and let the free market rock and roll. Who is right? Is there any prayer that we can find common ground?

When I voice concern about the environment, I tend to believe that I support Life. But the truth is, my concern is for life like us. Bacteria are really neat little goobers, and we couldn’t survive without them, but they did just fine without us for about ninety percent of the time since things began to wiggle on this planet.

The urgency I feel about toxic waste or global warming involves preserving the current population of the planet. I have a fondness for oxygen-breathing, carbon-based life forms like dolphins and cats and gorillas and bats, hummingbirds and butterflies, tuna, termites, lizards—and people. Well, some people, anyway.

When I factor people into the equation, it looks as though I might be speaking the same language as the movement that has adopted “wise use” as its slogan. The wise-users are the folks who want to permit mining, grazing and hunting in national parks, and who insist that old-growth forests are a renewable resource. They claim that global warming is an illusion, that there are no foreseeable limits to the human population of our planet, and that science will solve all of our problems by some time next week. They say the only useful measure of any policy is whether it is good for people, and they’re fond of trotting out a few scientists to bolster their claims.

OK, let’s go with that.

What? Me, a raving tree hugger, ready to accept the bottom line defined by earth rapers like Rush and Chainsaw Charlie? [former Rep. Charles Taylor, R-NC] Have I been drinking to excess?

My single caveat would be that we all must be willing to rely on real science, instead of rhetoric, to settle policy disputes. I am ready to concede any environmental debate on that basis. And by “real science,” I mean the consensus of the majority of knowledgeable researchers in a given field. Why do I say consensus? Shouldn’t we demand scientific proof?

Nice idea, but science doesn’t work that way. Outside of mathematics, where everything either adds up or it doesn’t, proof is impossible.

For example, if you release a crystal goblet ten feet above a brick patio, it will probably fall and shatter. Scientifically speaking, there is actually a tiny chance that it will bounce and land safely—and a much tinier chance that it won’t even fall. But, based on our experience of gravity and bricks, most of us would agree that the crystal is history.

In the same way, if the overwhelming majority of scientists agree about a particular issue, and one or a few disagree, the odds are very strong that the majority is correct.

Ready to be blinded by science? In 1992, nearly sixteen hundred of the world’s senior scientists, including more than half the living Nobel laureates—women and men from every discipline and every continent—signed The World’s Scientists Warning to Humanity. More have signed it in the years since then. In 1993, fifty-six of the world’s scientific academies met for the first-ever world Science Summit and issued a collaborative statement.

Most of the world’s scientists agree that, if the human race is to survive, we must reach zero population growth within the present generation. We must act now to shift from fossil fuels and nonrenewable resources to sustainable technologies. We must act now to reduce introduction of toxins and pollutants into the biosphere. We must act now to protect the biodiversity upon which all life depends.

Translation: The crystal goblet is headed toward the bricks.

There is nothing wrong with using human benefit as the measure of our policies, but short-term profit is a bad gage of success if it threatens long-term survival. If you are intent on amassing a fortune to leave to your heirs, you will also need some heirs to leave it to.

Are our current environmental-protection laws necessary? Sorry, Charlie: We have barely begun.

Coming soon to Amazon.com

The very best thing about Barack Obama

by Mark Morford

Nope, it’s not what you might think. The best thing about Barack Obama has almost nothing to do with him as a person or as a leader or even as Oh My God The First Black President Who Could Really Change Everything I Mean Wow. It’s not even the wondrous oratory power or the charisma or the sweet sense of deeper change overlaid with all kinds of sparkly utopian futuriffic goodness.

There is, I think, something more. Something richer. And it’s rather startling.

See, I’ve read the profiles and the liberal fawnings and the intelligent analysis, the attempted takedowns and the right-wing smears, all the valiant attempts to dig up something dirty or problematic or frightening about Obama and his family, his past, his middle name, his beliefs and his pastor and his favorite flavor of ice cream — attempts that, rather amusingly, have all failed.

Read the rest (click here).

My campaign is delivering free Obama ‘08 signs in Buncombe County. Click here.