"Incovenient Truth"

I saw "Inconvenient Truth" on Friday night. It's a documentary warning about the effects of Global Warming produced by Al Gore. It's really about his mission to make people aware of global warming, why it's happening, what the effects are and what we can do about it.

In some cases it might have been quite sentimental (which is ok), but generally I found it interesting and quite inspiring (i.e. it makes me want to take action). I covered some theory about global warming in my geography courses at UCT and was pleased not to notice any major inconsistencies between the facts presented and my education.

I think Al Gore makes a really strong argument why we should take global warming seriously while trying to make the science understandable and adding a human touch.

The human suffering caused by storms and droughts will be immense, but what really upset me was the reminder of how global warming will effect animals. In the Arctic, it's been found that polar bears are drowning before they are able to find the shore of the rapidly receding ice shelf : ( And, really it won't just be the polar bears that suffer as life cycles are put out of sink and habitats made inhospitable.

We really are heading to a mass extinction. It also makes me wonder if I'm investing my time in the right conservation activity. Trying to protect little remants of vegetation to preserve habitats etc. won't really help when that habitat transforms with climate change.

I didn't search long but here's quite a nice post about the movie.
I urge you to go see it and "The March of the Penguins" to make you realise how they will be effected too.

kill the tiger!

That's my new motto. Of course I support the slaughter of lions and leopards too. And your cat. Actually, it's not my new motto, but maybe it should be. How about just locking tigers up and feeding them tofu? What about following them around and shooting their prey in the head just as the tiger is about to get them?

I think this paper is interesting.

So why do we care about biodiversity?

In the context of my new job, I keep asking myself this question: Why do conservationists and I care about biodiversity?

Personally, I find it a hard-to-define, but certain feeling that biodiversity and nature must be protected in its pristine state. It is partly to do with its utilitarian value, but somehow I value it intrinsically and especially the individual life forms that live within nature. I also believe that we have so much to gain "spiritually" from appreciating and experiencing nature and wild animals. But at the same time I feel that I have to give more concrete reasons in terms of economics, environmental sustainability, food security and all the potential medical and technological discoveries, to other people to make them care about nature. And for that reason, because I want them to value biodiversity, I am always on the look out for arguments and facts in its favour.

This is why I found my reaction to a National Geographic magazine featuring biodiversity strange - I was disappointed and disturbed. From the first line of this "celebration" of biodiversity it only focussed on the utilitarian aspect of biodiversity from a human perspective and quickly went further to discuss how many bugs were foggered in the jungles of South America for a scientist's investigations and how the liver of some type of shark is an anti-cancer agent, and how frogs secrete powerful antibiotics when hurt. It made me realise that the only reason why many humans want to preserve biodiversity is to use it for science experiments and exploitation. It's not that I don't appreciate the amazing technology in nature and how it can help humans, but I am terrified that all this leads to is more suffering for animals that are captured, killed, sliced-and-diced, tested and milked for our benefit.


I just wish people would start to question the things that they do to animals. I realise animals are not as intelligent as us but we must question whether we have right to torture them even if it will help us dramatically. Medical research would probably be best tested on humans, but we don't do that because it is simply unacceptable.

Another heroine

Mary
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

I read a short biography about Mary Wollstonecraft this Saturday and found that my admiration for her increased ten-fold. I was already convinced by her work: “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” written in 1792, that she was not only the “first feminist”, but a compassionate and great thinker. This is an amazing book which passionately and reasonably argues for equal opportunity for men and women based on broader philosophical arguments about morality, religion and duty.

She makes an excellent point when she says that our moral decisions must be based on our own rational thought and feeling rather than by blindly following rules we don’t understand or the commands of others. Although she makes a general point, she particularly wished this principle to be applied to women, who, above all else had to be “virtuous”, yet were not properly educated to use their own reason and were encouraged to slavishly obey the men in their lives (fathers, husbands, brothers, etc.). And as she most observantly points out, why should women follow such imperfect beings as men?

There is so much wisdom in the book which is still relevant today that I can’t discuss it all here without writing an entire essay. What I find even more amazing is that her ideas, which were revolutionary for her time, seemed to develop without any outside influence, but rather from her own observation, thought and freewill. If so, she entirely independently realised the injustice of the way women (and the poor) were treated in those times. She rebelled against norms which were oppressive and immoral and at all times fought to follow her heart and own integrity. In short, she is amazing.

Please, please, read about Mary and be inspired by a truly brave, compassionate and individualistic thinker.

the vegetarian vice

Here's a post on my blog about the vegetarian vice. What do you think?

My point isn't that environmentalism is bad, just that it shouldn't be synonymous with vegetarianism. Ideally, declaring your views on meat eating should be similar to declaring your religion. Interesting maybe; but not a dead giveaway about your views on a bunch of other subjects.

Lessons of the cat commune

Much to my unhappiness I discovered yesterday that the fluffy-scruffy-looking cat in my block of flats is just skin and bones. I had noticed a while ago that this once much-protected luxurious cat was no longer anything special to its owners. It now shuffles around outside and has serious problems trying to fit in with the other cats who only remember seeing it as kitten being walked on a lead.

This cat Pippa, is starving. And as any concerned citizen of this local community I simply cannot let it starve. So it's going to get food from me as long as I live there. What choice do I have? How could I carry on living there with my cats all fat and happy and this unfortuante creature dying a slow death?

This makes me think of all the unhappy people out there suffering the same fate. Surely it is the responsibility of those who have food to help those who don't?
Yet I know I would struggle to become so personally involved. Perhaps it's because cats' problems are much simpler to fix than people's? Perhaps it's because the situation of poverty is so overwhelming and much too large for one person to tackle?

My ration of food for Pippa however could be compared to a minimum income given to all people no matter who they are or what their circumstances. (Stuart enlightned me to this idea.) Why should a person have to prove that they are unemployed and cannot find work before being given much needed money? The beaurocracy behind this is often so intense, demanding and time-consuming that the poor don't get their money before they are already on their hands and knees, if at all. The minimum income would come from taxes and not really make a difference to the rich, but to the poor it would. I don't know about the financial and logistical issues surrounding this, but it could be a good idea. What do you think?

My webpage has been updated

Finally I have updated my webpage on vegetarianism. It includes a little more new information on the Environment and Vegetarian resources and a new layout which I think is very pretty. A beautiful photo provided by our project botanist, Rupert Koopman inspired the layout (which still needs a little work, I admit). in fact it all needs work and revising, but hey, I'm a working girl!

You can check it out here .

By the way http://www.freewebs.com is quite a nice place to host your website for free.

I've discovered Diane Fossey

I'm housesitting in Scarborough (it's amazing) and discovered in it's bookshelves, "Woman in the Mist". The title is similar to "Gorilla's in the Mist", a book written by Dian Fossey and a movie about her life and is in fact about the passionate Dian

I never really paid attention to the movie, but I was intrigued by this book and once I started reading it, I've been engrossed in another world full of passion, tragedy, discovery and war. Dian is truly a remarkable woman and though some may have called her unstable and crazy, she was driven by a great love and compassion for her fellow creatures. she lived life to the full, with passion and honestly.

This strange bushwoman was also not a stranger to love of and from men. Men of all ages would fall passionately in love with this headstrong woman. Sadly none of these relationships were fated for success (or so far, I'm still reading).

It's set in an interesting place, the jungle-covered mountains between Congo and Rawanda during a time of conflict and uprising in Congo (Zaire), which is providing some fascinating background to my current perception of these countries.

The story is also disturbing and sad. Dian was fighting a losing battle against the most gruesome and persistant poaching of all the animals in the mountains where she lived, a supposed protected area. Gorillas hands and heads were chopped off in the most brutal way. Reading the book, it's easy to see what intelligent and beautiful animals, gorillas are and the connection between us and them. It's also easy to understand why Dian went to such great lengths (at her own personal risk) to try protect them. But very few people cared like her.

I only wonder what has happened to the gorillas now...

Beautiful bulbs!

Beautiful bulbs!
Originally uploaded by Tracy Leigh.

This is just one of the many many species of flowers found in Nieuwoudtville which is rapidly becoming grazed by sheep or ploughed for Rooibos.

This amazing photo was taken by Rupert. Thanks Rupert!

Nieuwoudtville paradise

I just spent a wonderful, informative and allergic 3 days in the bulb paradise of the world. This small area has an extremely high biodiversity of beautiful bulbs. Flowers of every shape and size. You also don't have to drive far to see the awesome plataeus stretching into the Karoo, roaring waterfalls and mysterious Kookeboom trees.

It's also baie Afrikaans! No vegetarian food for me. Well they tried but a vegetarian option simply meant added peas and carrots. I suppose I was vegetarianism is pretty unheard of in this sheep territory. Though rapidly turning into rooibos monoculture.

I will attach photos soon! Keep watching.

Darwin, animals and naturalism

I discovered an interesting book called "Pilgram on the Great Bird Content" by Lyanda Lynn Haupt. It sounds like a fascinating story about nature, birds and Darwin's unique character, which covers important scientific, philosophical and emotional issues related to evolution and nature.

Although I haven't read it, I have read the first chapter which was absorbing and thought provoking. You can check it out online too.

I'd love to buy it but I've already just bought Jane Goodall's "Harvest for Hope and have a million other books to read. Harvest for Hope is "easy to read" in the literary sense, but tough emotionally. Besides all the environmental damage our food production systems cause, there are some horrific stories of cruelty to animals. But she does at least give positive alternatives and ways to take action. All I can say is, buy organic when you can. It's better for your health, the environment and animals. Although it may be more expensive, I wonder if it really would be if other farmers were not subsidised by the government for their inefficient and cruel ways of farming?

I suppose I'm painting a picture that farmers are all evil when they aren't (except those that torture animals!). It's tough to make a living from farming, so even those that do like the idea of conservation still want to make the most money that they can out of their land so that they can feed their family, educate them, etc. It makes you wonder if feeding 6 billion people is really viable?

What's the big deal about GMO foods?

I must admit that I've been rather ignorant about GMO's for a long time now. I couldn't really understand what the big deal was about. After all we have been modifying animals and plants through selection for thousands of years. True, some of the results aren't great: cows' udders are known to cause them pain, persion cats can't eat properly because of their flat faces, etc.

I bought a book by Jane Goodall about food (I can't remember the title now) which described some of the problems of GMO food. Genetically modified foods have genes taken from other life forms and transformed genes which make them bigger, "better", and resistant to pesticides and herbicides. Some of the problems are

1) We are not sure what sort of negative effects food like this could have on humans.

2) Natural cross fertilisation results in genes being spread from genetically modified crops into other crops. This means that all crops whether you like it or not can and probably will become infected with GMO genes.

3) The spread of GMO crops is putting more and more of the land under monocultures with very little genetic diversity.

4) These genetically modified plants can spread everywhere and are resistant to herbicides and pesticides so won't be easy to remove.

5) GMO companies are gaining a monopoly over food and own the rights to certain genes.

Another question I've been wondering about is why is variety in genes important? The reason that I've discovered is that variety of genes means robustness. When a disease or change in environment starts affecting an area, variety in genes will allow some plants to survive and therefore prevent the extinction of the species. Genetic monocultures make humans vulnerable to food crisis.

Also GMO seed companies have patented their seeds, meaning that farmers are not allowed to grow these seeds without purchasing them, but with the natural cross fertilisation farmer's crops are being contaminated without their permission and then being sued by big GMO Seed companies!

It's just crazy and I certainly will be more wary of GMO food. With natural biodiversity already under great threat we certainly don't need to add further pressures. Also what are the ethical concerns of one or two companies owning the genes of certain life forms?

The rights of owning land

Today was the 4th day at my new Biodiversity Planning job and I am loving it! everything about it... the beautifal natural surounds, the passion of the people and the subject matter. To remind you, I am providing technical support for a project which aims to produce conservation plans for several important and threatened biodiversity areas in the Cape.

Pondering the more political and philosophical implications of this project, has already brought me into conflict with my boyfriend (as usual). The question is once these plans, indicating which areas cannot be developed and what other land use is suitable for other areas, are developed how far should we go to inforce it? If a precious natural habitat is found on someone's farm, can we inforce the landowner to not to develop, farm or mine it? Many, especially economists, would say that this is against his or her rights. But in my opinion, owning land should entail some rights, but not all possible permissions. Afterall what does it mean to own land which is something continuous, interconnected and "eternal" compared to our lifespans? That land also belonged to many others before, will be passed down to new generations in the future and is currently inhabited by many living creatures who depend on it for their survival. Once land is altered, it is usually always changed forever. A piece of land is also not an island. Ecosystems need to be connected to each other to maintain viability, and waste dumps, for example, frequently effect the surroundings (e.g. water contamination, property devaluation). There is also the added limitations of the capibility of one person to think long term and holistically. Combined with the pursuit of personal interests, how will they know what is best now and in the future? Also, if it is a time where preferences are to prize and protect rich natural heritage, what would happen if those preferences changed? Yet the scientific necessity of maintaining natural systems, nor the ethical considerations of those many animals who would be lost to themselves and future generations wouldn't.

I admit it does seem risky to allow someone else to tell you what to do on your land, but in the case of our project, it's many, many people from different backgrounds who inform the project. Also the analysis of what areas need to be conserved is based on the best available scientific practices. It's not hodge-podge speculation. I think it's better than letting the natural world be developed in a random way. Human's are notorious for being short-sighted and destroying land. And no, it's not always true that as something becomes more scarce people value it more. Think of Easter Island, where the inhabitants cut down all the trees. This changed the climate and destroyed the soil, causing poverty and hunger, but they couldn't even build a boat to escape this dreadful scenario!

Yes, I'm still alive

I must apologise for the lack of posts lately. With things winding up in my current job before I take the new one in Kirstenbosch, I just haven't had time. So I shouldn't be surprised that I've lost all my readers... But I'll keep posting when I can.

new post!

It's been almost 3 weeks since the last post, so I thought I should do something about it. I think you should charge over here and pummel my opponents into the ground.

Half man, half mouse

Refering to my post below, I think it's an interesting idea: a human's brain inside a mouse! Quoting from the article:
'Professor Henry T. Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences and leader of the committee that considered the proposal, ..., (said), "We concluded that if we see any signs of human brain structures . . . or if the mouse shows human-like behaviors, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop."'

Can you imagine that?! For the first time, humankind will finally be able to get the perspective of being another animal!

But really I wonder why they want to do this? According to this article it's to investigate brain diseases like Alzeimers, schizophrenia, etc.. I still don't if I like the idea. I know people and families suffer with these dreadful diseases but we don't test on people. Why not? because we say that human's have some inalieble human rights. Why don't animals have rights? I think any form of testing should be voluntary. Since animals can't give their permission perhaps they shouldn't be used.

Mixing mice and men

Shock-horror when I discovered this article while following links from the site recommended in my previous post saying that they are going to implant human brain cells into a developing mouse's brain. They also discuss other animal testing such as pigs trying artificial corneas and monkeys get gene manipulations as if it were the most fun thing in the world! Sometimes I just don't like scientists! Their desire to discover things before anyone else, change the world and people's minds, which is often and mostly driven by the Ego, far outweighs the suffering that they may cause. grr....

Everyday myths derailed

I found a cool link to this science site where every day myths like the fact that we use only 10 % of our brains or that bubblegum takes 7 years to digest if swallowed or that the Great Wall of China is the only manmade object visible from space by astronauts.

It's strange...

how people can feel so much sympathy and love for cats, dogs and other animals that we adopt, whether they be tortoises, parrots or rabbits, yet happily eat cows, sheep, pigs and chickens. A lot of people really connect with domestic animals, they observe and appreciate their unique personalities, quirks and especially the companionship they give. These people believe that their pets do think and feel, and they really dislike seeing an animal being badly treated. I think it's wonderful to see the connection that can be built between humans and animals, but I also find it so odd that we (it was me too until recently) do not make the link between us and farm animals. Somehow these animals don't feel or think, and are not capable of building relationships or appreciating their lives. If that's what we think then yes it's fine for us to eat them. We need not think more about it.

I suppose we can also justify eating meat by saying it's the natural order of things. Lions eat buck and it's not pretty (I cringe at nature documentaries showing the hunt and kill). This is where I find myself struggling with what seems to be conflicting viewpoints, as someone who believes in nature and evolution (only) and places humans firmly amongst other living creatures, yet believing that human beings can strive for such high ideals and ethics through being aware and having the power to make truly liberated decisions (can we really? more confusion!).

The latter also seems to imply that yes we are ultimately better and above other animals? Well, I don't think it should be a question of superiority but simply one of difference. Each animal is uniquely and beautifully adapted to fit into its environment. A cat is not somehow deficient because it can't do maths, it is supremely athletic and agile, has lightening reflexes, insatiable curiousity, great eye-sight and hearing. How is it deficient for what it's meant to do? It's perfect. So how are we better? Especially when we don't use our natural abilities (like thinking, reflecting, compassion and caring).

There are a lot of things that are natural. It's suggested that rape, racism, war are natural, but that doesn't mean that those are principals we should strive for. I think on some reflection and especially, when we build understanding and empathy for others, we would wish to build a society that is not violent, but peaceful in all ways.

New Job at Kirstenbosch!

Well, I have finally made a decision regarding my future and what I want to do. That's why I have accepted a job offer (for much less money) to work for Cape Nature as a GIS Technician on project for Fine Scale Biodiversity Planning. I'm very lucky to be based at the spectacular Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens . Now who wouldn't die to have an office environment looking up onto the mountains and the lush forests down it's slope. I feel very lucky to have been given this opportunity to direct my career into biodiversity conservation at such a beautiful place.