Pollution: Still Learning

Posted on February 17, 2017 by Brian H. Gill

Scientists found PCBs and PBDEs in deep-sea critters, armyworms are on the march in Africa, and Mexico City’s air isn’t as clean as we’d hoped.

Rational concern seems reasonable.

  1. PCB in the Deep Blue Sea
  2. Armyworms March in Africa: and Asia, North America, – – –
  3. Mexico City’s Extended Car Ban: Good Idea, Nil Results
  4. Earth’s June 2015 Magnetic Field Breach
  5. Halley Base Relocated

Last week I talked about blaming our tools for our mistakes. (February 10, 2017)

This week I’ll revisit Lovecraft’s “placid island of ignorance,” sort of:

Dominion: Part of Our Job


(From Johnhart Studios, used w/o permission.)

I talked about Genesis 1:26–27 and using our brains last week. (February 10, 2017)

Briefly, we have “dominion,” not ownership. God owns this place. As stewards, we have authority and responsibilities. (Genesis 1:29, 2:15; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 306–308, 373, 2293, 2402)

Managing this world and its resources is part of our job. We can use what’s here, within reason: for ourselves, and preparing for future generations. (Catechism, 2415–2418, 2456)

Pollution

I’ll be talking about PCBs and PBDEs found deep in Earth’s ocean, and Mexico City’s effort to control air quality.

Pollution and politics got entangled, so if you’re bracing for a diatribe against someone or something — please relax.

My interest in pollution and other environmental matters comes from living on Earth, and being a Catholic who understands our faith. I’m not conservative or liberal: just Catholic. (January 22, 2017; August 12, 2016)

Pollution is far from a new environmental issue. Scientists found very old soot on the roof of caves. What we’ve done to stay healthy, and how effective we’ve been, has changed over the millennia.

I don’t know how effective England’s King Edward I 1272 proclamation, banning sea-coal burning in London, was.

Romans used chimneys in bakeries, Hamelin Plantagenet apparently had a chimney built into the new Conisbrough Castle keep, the technology didn’t catch on until later, and that’s another topic.

We’re still cleaning up the mess left from lapses of judgment during the Industrial Revolution, but factories weren’t the only polluters.

The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 gave way to Dr. Henry Antoine Des Voeux’s 1905 “Fog and Smoke” paper, which added “smog” to my language.

Basically, pollution is a real problem, it’s not new, and we generally try to control it. That’s a good thing, because soot and its contemporary equivalents can cause health problems.1

“God’s Gift to Everyone”


(From NASA, via Astrobiology Magazine, used w/o permission.)

Okay: pollution is real, and isn’t good for our health. Is trying to do something about it okay?

There’s that “in the world but not of the world” thing in John 15:18–19, 17:14–16, and Romans 12:2. But I’m quite sure that doesn’t mean we should ignore something that’s hurting folks.

I agree with Genesis 1:31: this world is “very good.” Respect for God should include respect for “…the particular goodness of every creature, to avoid any disordered use of things….” (Catechism, 339)

Exodus 20:15, Leviticus 19:11, and Deuteronomy 5:19 say that stealing is a bad idea, and we shouldn’t do it. I think that makes sense.

More to the point, the ‘don’t steal’ principle goes beyond theft.

I’m expected to exercise “justice and charity” in how I use earthly goods. Private property is a good idea: but I must remember that my neighbors, and folks who haven’t been born yet, share this world with me. (Catechism, 2401–2406, 2415)

“…The environment is God’s gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole….”
(“Caritas in Veritate,” Benedict XVI (June 29, 2009))

1. PCB in the Deep Blue Sea


(From NPG, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)

“Banned chemicals persist in deep ocean”
Paul Rincon, BBC News (February 2, 2017)

“Chemicals banned in the 1970s have been found in the deepest reaches of the Pacific Ocean, a new study shows.

“Scientists were surprised by the relatively high concentrations of pollutants like PCBs and PBDEs in deep sea ecosystems.

“Used widely during much of the 20th Century, these chemicals were later found to be toxic and to build up in the environment.

“The results are published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution….”

PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) and PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl ethers) are organic compounds. They’re marvelously useful. PCBs, first manufactured in 1881, kept electrical equipment cool, was used in carbonless copy paper and heat transfer fluids.

It’s also quite toxic, which is why various governments started banning the stuff. That was in the 1970s, around the time PBDE production started in America.

The stuff makes a good flame retardant. That’s why we put it in so many building materials, electronics, furnishings, motor vehicles, airplanes, plastics, polyurethane foams, and textiles. I talked about fire, humans, and learning, last week. (February 10, 2017)

It didn’t take nearly as long to realize that PBDE was toxic, too. Still, it looked like a good idea at the time.

Besides being toxic, PCBs and PBDEs are notoriously difficult to get rid of. Get rid of safely, that is. PCBs will break down at very high temperatures: into other toxic compounds, so that’s not a good idea.

They’ll react with various chemicals, and scientists are learning if that’ll lead to practical disposal technology. Other scientists have found microorganisms that eat PCBs: slowly. So will some ligninolytic fungi.2

Quite a few folks think turning PCBs and PBDEs into less-toxic stuff is important, so I think there’s reasonable hope that we’ll find a solution.

Meanwhile, I gather that most of us have stopped making the chemicals; so the problem now is mostly dealing with what’s already out there.

We’re Still Learning


(From National Centers for Environmental Information, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Earth’s surface, elevation map.)

Some textbooks, particularly the older ones, I grew up with showed ocean floors as vast plains, covered with of silt and organic debris which had drifted down over the aeons.

It made sense. Quite a few scientists had decided that Arthur Holmes’ research was right, and Earth is billions, not millions, of years old.

Then, as now, some folks insisted that the universe was created on the nightfall preceding October 23, 4004 BC. I’ve talked about science, truth, and using the brains God gave us, before. Often. (October 28, 2016; July 29, 2016; August 28, 2016)

The idea that parts of Earth’s crust had been moving hadn’t sunk in yet, so there was little reason to think that the seafloor was anything but a huge sedimentary deposit.

On the other hand, we did know about a few shallow spots. Matthew Fontaine Maury did some groundbreaking — waterbreaking?? — research in the mid-to-late 1800s.

Using soundings taken in 1853, he noticed comparatively shallow water between Newfoundland and Ireland.

Folks were planning a transatlantic telegraph cable at the time, so in 1854 Maury wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Navy describing a “telegraph plateau” along the proposed route.

It seemed too good to be true: and was. There is shallow water along the route. But depth in the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone, discovered in 1963, varies from 400 fathoms to nearly 2500 fathoms.

We were learning a lot, fast, about Earth in the 1950s and 60s. We didn’t have all the answers then, and still don’t. ‘Science news’ has remained occasionally more imaginative than accurate. (January 27, 2017; January 20, 2017; December 16, 2016)

We have, however, learned that critters live just about everywhere on Earth’s surface: including the deepest ocean trenches. We’re still not sure how long toxins stay in food chains and webs. But as I keep saying, we’re still learning.3

2. Armyworms March in Africa: and Asia, North America, – – –


(From CABI, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“The armyworm burrows into cobs”
(BBC News))

“Fall armyworm ‘threatens African farmers’ livelihoods’”
Helen Briggs, BBC News (February 6, 2017)

“Scientists are calling for urgent action to halt the spread of a pest that is destroying maize crops and spreading rapidly across Africa.

“The fall armyworm poses a major threat to food security and agricultural trade, warns the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (Cabi).

“It says farmers’ livelihoods are at risk as the non-native insect threatens to reach Asia and the Mediterranean.

“The Food and Agriculture Organization plans emergency talks on the issue. …”

Amyworm is our name for several sorts of moth larvae: Spodoptera frugiperda, fall armyworm, is this article’s featured creature. It’s native to the Americas, and gets its name by being active mostly in autumn; and late summer, in the southern United States.

Spodoptera exempta, African armyworm, wreaks havoc in eastern Africa, Yemen, some Pacific islands, and parts of Australia.

Mythimna separata, Northern armyworm, does the same in China, Japan, South-east Asia, India, Sri Lanka, Eastern Australia, New Zealand, and some Pacific Islands.

Mythimna unipuncta, the “true” armyworm, is particularly common in North America. It’s in the Hawaiian Islands, some areas of South America, southern Europe, North Africa, the Sahel region of Africa, Central Asia and eastern Bangladesh, and east Africa, too.

The critters get their “armyworm” name by ‘marching’ through crops, defoliating the area, then moving on or burrowing to pupate and become moths.

The good news is that folks have developed quite a few ways to deal with them: picking the caterpillars off by hands, setting ducks loose in the fields, blacklight and pheromone traps for adults, and spraying pesticides.

We’ve been looking for alternatives to pesticides, which led scientists to several viruses, fungi, protozoa, nematodes, and a bacterium, that will kill armyworms. Quite a few of the critters die, eventually: but not before eating most of a season’s crop.4

A Digression on Maize, Mainly Linguistic


(From AndrewMT, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Maize production, worldwide.)

“Maize,” by the way, is from the Americas, too. The first domestic variety was developed where Mexico is now, some 10,000 years ago. I don’t know what folks called it then.

About five centuries back, folks speaking Taíno told Spanish-speaking folks about mahiz. By the time the word got to me, my Upper-Midwest American English habits have me pronouncing it the same way I do “maze.”

Corn/maize/mahiz was developed long before the Olmecs, a name we got from Nahuatl, the Aztec language.

“Aztec” is what happened to the Nahuatl words aztecatl (singular) and aztecah (plural) when Alexander von Humboldt’s travel plans were disrupted; and that’s yet another topic.

I generally say “corn” when I mean maize. So, I understand, do most other Americans. Also Australians and New Zealanders.

The Oxford dictionary, being British, defines corn as “the chief cereal crop of a district, especially (in England) wheat or (in Scotland) oats;” or “the grain of a cereal crop.” They acknowledge my meaning, too.

3. Mexico City’s Extended Car Ban: Good Idea, Nil Results


(From Getty Images, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“The study finds that restricting cars on Saturdays doesn’t alleviate the dirty air”
(BBC News))

“Car ban fails to curb air pollution in Mexico City”
Matt McGrath, BBC News (February 2, 2017)

“Banning cars on Saturdays in Mexico City hasn’t reduced air pollutants, according to a new study.

“Scientists had expected that limiting driving at the weekend would reduce vehicle emissions by 15%.

“But this analysis looking at pollution measurements in a city with serious air quality problems, found no discernible effect.

“Residents got round the restrictions by car pooling, using taxis and purchasing extra vehicles, researchers say.

“Back in 1992, the UN declared Mexico City the world’s most polluted city….”

First, the good news. Folks apparently have been cooperating with Mexico City’s Hoy No Circula program, started in 1989. It put limits on which cars could be used on weekdays.

Now, the not-so-good news: Mexico City is still on the now-drained Lake Texcoco lakebed, surrounded by mountains. That’s not going to change any time soon, and neither is the city’s comparative lack of natural ventilation.

Stuff that gets into Mexico City’s air tends to stay there, at least for a while. Los Angeles, another city lying in a basin, has similar problems.

That may explain why folks speaking Gabrielino called the Los Angeles basin “iyáangẚ.” Depending on who’s talking, that means “poison oak place” or “the valley of smoke.”

Then there’s what folks called the site of another American city, back in the day: “shikaakwa.” By the time English-speaking Americans tried saying something a French explorer wrote, the word was “Chicago.” Apparently it means “wild garlic.”

I give folks speaking Miami-Illinois languages credit for some sense of poetry, and suspect that a more idiomatically-accurate translation of shikaakwa as a place name for what we called the Chicago Portage would be “big stinky.”

Expectations, Speculation, and Hope


(From ComputerJA, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(A privately-owned museum in Mexico: the Museo Soumaya Plaza Carso’s entrance floor.)

The researchers said they found “no evidence that the expansion was successful in getting drivers to switch to lower-emitting forms of transportation.”

Expecting a 15% reduction in air pollution after adding Saturday to the Hoy No Circula program made sense: assuming that all of the measured pollution was from automobiles. One-sixth of six days is 16.67%, which is pretty close to 15%.

Also assuming that the city’s alternative vehicles were less polluting per person than privately-owned cars.

The researchers say the city’s public transit is slow and uncomfortable, which wouldn’t encourage use. I’m not convinced that public transit is necessarily less polluting than cars.

I strongly suspect that part of Mexico City’s air pollution is from the city’s 50,000 or so industries.5

Don’t get me wrong: I think Mexico City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other cities can be fine places to live. After we get some engineering and social issues sorted out.

4. Earth’s June 2015 Magnetic Field Breach


(From Science Photo Library, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Artwork: The Earth’s magnetosphere protects the planet from a continuous flow of cosmic radiation”
(BBC News))

“Scientists record breach in magnetic field”
Siva Parameswaran, BBC News (February 2, 2017)

“Scientists have recorded the events that unfolded after the Earth’s magnetic shield was breached.

“Openings in the planet’s magnetic field are not uncommon, but it is rarer to get the opportunity to gather data while such an event is in progress.

“A cosmic ray monitoring facility recorded a burst of cosmic rays associated with the opening.

“The magnetic field breach was the result of charged particles from the Sun striking the Earth at high speed.

“The GRAPES-3 muon telescope located at the Cosmic Ray Laboratory (CRL) in Ooty, southern India, recorded a burst of galactic cosmic rays of about 20 gigaelectronvolts (GeV) on 22 June 2015.

“‘In this case the magnetic field was breached for only two hours and then returned back to normal. The magnetic field strength reduced only by 2%,’ Dr Sunil Gupta, lead scientist at the CRL told the BBC….”

Scientists called the “breach” a “transient weakening of Earth’s magnetic shield” associated with “a severe G4-class geomagnetic storm.” It happened when a coronal mass ejection reached Earth.

Coronal mass ejections (CMEs) are plasma, mostly electrons and protons, pushed out from the sun. They’re like clumps or gusts in the Solar wind, and were almost certainly happening long before we showed up.

Over the last few billion years, a very great many hit Earth’s magnetosphere. Or, when they hit while our field was reversing, Earth’s atmosphere.

What’s significant about this collision between a CME and Earth’s magnetosphere is that scientists had instruments set up, recording data, while it happened

The first CME we know of is the Solar storm of 1859.

We didn’t call it that until much later, after folks had learned what to look for.

Making Connections, 1860-1971

James Clerk Maxwell published his first set of differential equations around 1860.

Wilhelm Röntgen discovered Röntgen rays, winning the first Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901. We call that bandwidth of electromagnetic radiation X-rays today.

In 1902 Oliver Heaviside modified Maxwell’s equations, and said that we could look for a layer in the upper atmosphere that reflects some radio waves. Arthur E. Kennelly apparently said pretty much the same thing at the same time.

Edward Victor Appleton got the 1947 Nobel Prize in Physics for showing that the Kennelly-Heaviside layer was real: despite our having to learn something new about physics in the process, and that’s yet again another topic.

On December 14, 1971, Orbiting Solar Observatory 7’s SEC caught a 256 × 256 pixel image which was eventually viewed by David Roberts, an electronics technician working at the United States Naval Research Laboratory.

Roberts thought the bright spot was a glitch, until another image showed the spot — which had moved farther away from the sun. Scientists confirmed that this was the first clear detection of a coronal mass ejection.

Back in 1859, Röntgen rays and robot spaceships were generations in the future. It wasn’t until 1953 that scientists started noticing connections between sparky telegraph poles, spectacular auroral displays, and what two amateur astronomers had noticed.

September, 1859: Sparky Telegraph Poles

Just before noon, September 1, 1859, two amateur astronomers, Richard Carrington and Richard Hodgson, noticed a bright flare on the sun.

About 17.6 hours later, Balfour Stewart at the Kew Observatory magnetometer recorded a “magnetic crochet.”

Auroras of September 1 and 2 that year were spectacular. Gold miners in the Rocky Mountains started fixing breakfast, mistaking the glow for morning’s light.

Folks in the northeastern U.S. could read newspapers by the aurora’s light, which was visible in sub-Saharan Africa, Mexico, Queensland, and places even closer to the equator.

“…Between 12 and 1 o’clock, when the display was at its full brilliancy, the quiet streets of the city resting under this strange light, presented a beautiful as well as singular appearance.”
(Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser (September 3, 1859) via Wikipedia)

Some telegraph operators got electric shocks, telegraph pylons sparked, and some telegraph equipment stayed operational after their plugs were pulled.6

Lloyd’s of London and Making Progress

Shocked telegraph operators aside, the 1859 phenomenon didn’t affect people’s lives. Since then, we’ve built continent-spanning power grids and communication networks.

Lloyd’s of London produced a report “for general information purposes only” in 2013.

They figuring that a similar event would cost between 0.6 and 2.6 trillion dollars. That’s just in the United States; from damaged electrical equipment, power outages, and communication breakdowns.

We still don’t know exactly how coronal mass ejections work, what causes them, or how they interact with Earth’s magnetic field. For that matter, we’re far from certain how Earth’s magnetic field affects conditions here on the surface.6

That’s not, I think, a reason to be fearful. We’ve never known all there is to know about how this universe works, but we’ve been learning: and have recently discovered many previously-unknown questions. I see that as progress.

5. Halley Base Relocated


(From BAS/M.Krzysztofowicz, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“All eight modules were towed across the ice shelf to the new location further from the sea”

(From BAS/P.Bucktrout, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“The move was made possible by a hydraulic leg and ski system ”

(From BAS, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“The central red module weighs over 200 tonnes”
(BBC News))

“UK completes Antarctic Halley base relocation”
Jonathan Amos, BBC News (February 2, 2017)

“The British Antarctic Survey (BAS) has completed the move of its Halley research station.

“The base is sited on the floating – and moving – Brunt Ice Shelf, and had to be relocated or face being dumped in the ocean.

“Tractors were used to tow the eight modules that make up the futuristic-looking Halley 23km further ‘inland’.

“Last month, BAS announced it would ‘mothball’ the station for the duration of the coming Antarctic winter….

“…It has two key functions. One is as a support link to deep-field exploration of the Antarctic interior. And the second – and main task – is as a centre of research itself….

“…Present day work also includes investigations into ‘space weather’ – the impacts that occur when particles and magnetic fields billowing away from the Sun collide with Earth’s magnetic field and upper atmosphere….”

I talked about the Brunt Ice Shelf and Halley Research Station’s move a few weeks back. (January 20, 2017)

Before I forget: the BAS website includes a “Halley Research Station – module layout” page and interactive 360° tour.

Normally there would be a crew of about 14 staying at the base over winter. I suppose BAS wants to give scientists more time to study the new cracks in Brunt Ice Shelf, before committing an overwinter crew. It’s a long winter night there. Sundown comes April 29, and it’ll be dark until dawn: August 13.

Nobody calls Antarctica home, not yet. But around 1,000 technicians and scientists stay for the winter at permanent bases. Antarctica’s population is usually about 4,000 in summer: including a few tourists.

Faith, Fear, and Lovecraft

I’ve mentioned Lovecraft’s “placid island of ignorance” before. (December 16, 2016)

“…The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age….”
(“The Call of Cthulhu,” H. P. Lovecraft (1929); via WikiQuote)

My lively interest in our expanding knowledge of God’s visible creation isn’t, I think, strictly required. But studying natural processes is a good idea. It’s one way we can learn more about God. (Catechism, 31–35)

Some of our Saints, like St. Albertus Magnus and St. Hildegard of Bingen, were scientists back when science was still called natural philosophy. (October 30, 2016; July 29, 2016)

The Catholic version of faith is a willing and conscious “assent to the whole truth that God has revealed.” (Catechism, 142–150)

Deliberately maintaining ignorance of God’s creation seems — illogical. And that’s still another topic.

More ‘science’ posts:

1 About pollution:

2 PCBs, PBDEs, and deep-sea critters:

3 Earth’s ocean and life:

4 Armyworms:

5 Mexico City, mostly:

6 Coronal mass ejections, the 1859 storm, and all that:

Posted in Science News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Anger and Whitewashed Tombs

Posted on February 12, 2017 by Brian H. Gill

There’s a lot of anger online these days. Derogatory epithets1 getting spat back and forth on some social media give me that impression, anyway.

Getting angry is one thing. Staying angry is another. Hurling insults — brings me to part of today’s Gospel reading, Matthew 5:17–37. It’s from the Sermon on the Mount:

“15 16 ‘You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, “You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.”
“17 But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”
(Matthew 5:21–22)

The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5, 6, and 7, is a sort of ‘Christianity 101:’ a look at what being a Christian means. There’s with a shorter version in Luke 6:20–49.

It boils down to ‘love God, love my neighbor, everyone’s my neighbor.’ (Matthew 22:36–40, Mark 12:28–31; Matthew 5:43–44; Mark 12:28–31; Luke 10:25–30; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1825)

“Raqa?!”

“Raqa,”2 or “reqa,” probably meant something like “imbecile,” or “blockhead” in Aramaic. Either way, it’s offensive: and mild, compared to some of the insults I’ve seen recently.

I’m pretty sure that the idea in Matthew 5:22 is that verbal abuse is a bad idea, and we shouldn’t do it.

Worse, in a way, venting my feelings could become a bad habit: which probably involves my basal ganglia, and certainly gets harder to change as I get older.

I’ve been having a hard enough time dialing back sarcasm and other impulsive responses I’ve developed, without adding online insults to the mix.

Whitewashed Tombs

But as long as I keep all those red-hot rejoinders I think of to myself, I’m okay: right?

Not so much.

Matthew shares a list of “woes,” really bad ideas, later: Matthew 23:13 through 35.

They’re different sides of one really bad idea, actually: putting up a virtuous front while ignoring ethical rot inside. Luke mentions the problem, too: Luke 11:34–52, and Luke 20:45–47.

“15 ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth.
“Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.”
(Matthew 23:27–28)

Living in Truth

Since I take God and truth seriously, living in truth makes sense. (Romans 3:4; Catechism, 2465–2470, Catechism, 2505)

That’s why behaving myself, controlling my actions, and what happens in my heart, is important. (Matthew 15:18–19)

I’d like to say that I have achieved perfection; that my every act, word, thought, and impulse reflects nothing but love for God, neighbor, and — you get the picture. That’s not even close to being true.

I’ve talked about truth, sin, and hypocrisy, before. Basically, Holy Willie is a terrible role model. (December 4, 2016; October 23, 2016)

Love and Justice

I won’t denounce ‘those sinners over there’ because I’m one of them. (December 4, 2016; July 10, 2016)

But if I think I’m a sinner, and don’t ask God to smite offensive folks something fearful, how come I don’t keep quiet about the invective I’ve been seeing?

Forgiving others is important.

“11 If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.
“But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.”
(Matthew 6:14–15)

“1 2 ‘Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
“For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.”
(Matthew 7:1–2)

Loving my neighbor also means working for justice and bearing “witness to the truth.” (John 18:37; Catechism, 2471–2474)

Respect for the “transcendent dignity” of humanity demands that I work for justice “as far as possible.” (Catechism, 976–980, 1915, 1929–1933, 2820)

I figure that includes trying to do something about less-than-loving behavior.

For someone in my position, that includes suggesting that hurling insults is a bad idea: and acting like I believe it.

Ezekiel, Ephesians, and Me

I don’t have the sort of mandate Ezekiel got. However, I suspect that the general principle still applies, and taking a chance like this doesn’t make sense:

“If I say to the wicked man, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death.”
(Ezekiel 3:18)

I think this is good advice, too:

“All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling must be removed from you, along with all malice.”
(Ephesians 4:31)

I’m still working on that. Particularly removing the bitterness and anger. And that’s another topic.

More, mostly about acting like love and God matter:

1 “Epithet” apparently doesn’t have much to do with “epaulettes,” although both came to English by way of French:

  • Epaulette
    “Late 18th century: from French épaulette, diminutive of épaule shoulder, from Latin spatula in the late Latin sense shoulder blade.” (oxforddictionaries.com)
  • Epithet
    “Late 16th century: from French épithète, or via Latin from Greek epitheton, neuter of epithetos attributed, from epitithenai add, from epi upon + tithenai to place.” (oxforddictionaries.com)

2 Sound familiar? I’ve been over this before:

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Bogs and Bison

Posted on February 10, 2017 by Brian H. Gill

The good news is that bison are back in Banff, and Britain’s bogs may bounce back, too. Keeping wetlands wet isn’t what many folks had in mind, back in my youth.

But as I keep saying, we’ve learned quite a bit since then.

  1. Saving Britain’s Bogs?
  2. Banff Bison Rebound

This post’s afterword is a quick look at how folks have perceived natural resources, plus a bit about pessimism and being human:

Stewardship and Learning Wisdom

I agree with God’s assessment: this world is “very good.” Basically. So are we: basically. The first of us made an appalling decision that broke our original harmony. (Genesis 1:31; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 355, 364, 374–379, 396–401)

That makes it hard to do what is right, and that’s another topic. (November 6, 2016)

Humanity is created in the image of God, rational creatures whose nature includes curiosity. We’re supposed to notice beauty and order in the universe, learn its natural laws, and use that knowledge: wisely. (Genesis 1:26–27, 2:7; Catechism, 16, 341, 373, 1704, 1730–1731, 2293)

Part of our job is managing this world and its resources: for our reasoned use, and for future generations. (Catechism, 2415–2418, 2456)

Our “dominion” is not ownership. God owns this place. We’re stewards, a position that comes with authority and responsibilities. (Genesis 1:29, 2:15; Catechism, 306–308, 2293)

We’ve got free will; so acting responsibly is an option, not a requirement. (Catechism, 311, 396, 1704, 1730)

Increasingly-effective tools we’ve developed over the last few centuries made the Green Revolution possible. Also killer fog and the Boston Molasses Disaster.

Fearing science and technology isn’t reasonable. Learning wisdom is. (January 20, 2017; July 22, 2016)

Don’t Blame the Tools

I said earlier that I think this world is basically good. That doesn’t mean I think it is “safe.” There are hazards here.

St. Thomas Aquinas had a few words to say about living in a world where we can get hurt. Quite a few, actually:

“In the words of Augustine (Super. Gen. contr. Manich. i): ‘If an unskilled person enters the workshop of an artificer he sees in it many appliances of which he does not understand the use, and which, if he is a foolish fellow, he considers unnecessary. Moreover, should he carelessly fall into the fire, or wound himself with a sharp-edged tool, he is under the impression that many of the things there are hurtful; whereas the craftsman, knowing their use, laughs at his folly. And thus some people presume to find fault with many things in this world, through not seeing the reasons for their existence. For though not required for the furnishing of our house, these things are necessary for the perfection of the universe.’ And, since man before he sinned would have used the things of this world conformably to the order designed, poisonous animals would not have injured him.”
(“The Summa Theologica,” First Part, Question 72; St. Thomas Aquinas [emphasis mine])

“…Now action is properly ascribed, not to the instrument, but to the principal agent, as building is ascribed to the builder, not to his tools. Hence it is evident that use is, properly speaking, an act of the will….”
(“The Summa Theologica,” First Part of the Second Part, Question 16, Article 1; St. Thomas Aquinas)
(translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Benziger Bros. edition, 1947))

St. Thomas Aquinas was quoting St. Augustine of Hippo. Falling into a fire or getting cut isn’t a good idea. But if a dummkopf wanders into a workshop and gets hurt — it isn’t the fire’s fault, or the sharp-edged tool’s.

I think the principle can be extended to all tech. When using our tools leads to unintended and unpleasant results, blaming the tools doesn’t make sense. Re-evaluating how we’re using them, and what we’re trying to do, does.

1. Saving Britain’s Bogs?


(From BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“The team carried out the laboratory experiments using lowland peatland agricultural soil and crops of radishes”
(BBC News))

“Boosting water table can curb climate risks, says study”
Mark Kinver, BBC News (February 6, 2017)

“Increasing the water table under the UK’s arable peatland can help boost yields and the amount of carbon stored in the soil, a study has suggested.

“University of Sheffield researchers are encouraging farmers to increase the water table to 30cm under the surface, rather than the recommended 50cm.

“Under current practices, the nation’s farmed peatlands could be lost by the end of the century, they add.

“The findings appear in the Science of the Total Environment journal….”

I suppose peatland or sounds better than mire, bog, or fen, but all mean land that’s saturated with water and doesn’t have trees growing on it. Add trees, and we call it a swamp. In my ‘good old days,’ swamps and mires were mostly places to ignore or drain.

We’ve learned a lot since then, and I’m sure there is a great deal left to learn.

The old ‘ignore it or drain it’ attitude made some sense, before we learned what they do.

Bogs and fens are great places to live for critters like frogs and herons. Humans, not so much. Folks who wander into wetlands don’t always come out, particularly if they follow a will-o’-the-wisp, and that’s yet another topic.

For botanists and ecologists “peatland” is any terrain that’s mostly peat, down to a depth of at least 30 centimeters, 12 inches: even if it’s been drained.

Peat is what we get when organic stuff doesn’t quite decay. Given time, it would become coal. Folks have used it as a fuel, and still do.

I’ve read that burning peat caused the 1997 Southeast Asian haze, and that fires from slash-and-burn agriculture were to blame. I couldn’t find much data about the mess, but the 1997 Indonesian forest fires were spectacular.

Peatlands are found around the world, covering about 3% of Earth’s land: something like 4,000,000 square kilometers, 1,500,000 square miles. That’s a lot of swamp and mire.

It looks like peatlands hold and process something like a third of the carbon in Earth’s soil, and around 10% of the world’s fresh water.

That makes them an important part of life on Earth. We’ve learned that much since my youth. Ecology and environmental science emerged as distinct disciplines in the last century. So like I said, there is a great deal left to learn.1

Raising the Water Table: Possible?


(© Copyright Barbara Cook)
(“Greylake sluice on King’s Sedgemoor Drain”
(Wikipedia))

“…Peatlands are widely recognised as important habitats in need of preserving because they are a carbon-rich landscape, estimated to hold half of England’s soil carbon.

“However, they also are an important component of the UK farming landscape.

“Mr Musarika observed: ‘We want to maintain food production because we know the population is growing.

“‘We are realising that it is important to keep not just food but it is also important to maintain the peatlands because if we lose them then we will lose more carbon storage capabilities.’

“Co-author Prof Walter Oechel from the University of Exeter said the findings were important because climate change mitigation was a dominant fixture on the global policy table….”
(Mark Kinver, BBC News)

Hats off to Mark Kinver and BBC News, for not presenting this as a choice between either feeding folks or protecting a presumably-delicate Mother Nature. I’ve talked about Earth’s ecosystem, the last few billion years, and Captain Planet, before. (August 12, 2016)

Assuming that raising the water table by 20 centimeters under farmed peatland is a good idea, is it possible?

I think the answer is “yes.” Folks have been managing water levels in farmland for a long time. Probably not as long as we’ve been planting crops, though.

We don’t know exactly how and why folks near the Mediterranean’s east end started planting crops, roughly 11 millennia back.

The Holocene climatic optimum started about the same time, flooding Doggerland and — probably — making the Neolithic Revolution possible and/or necessary.2

Scientists sometimes call the Holocene climatic optimum the Atlantic period. It’s the moistest Blytt-Sernander period, pollen zone and chronozone during the Holocene in northern Europe.

Don’t bother trying to remember all those names, unless you’re a science geek, maybe.

The point is that Earth had been a lot colder, then it got a bit warmer, than it is today, and that’s when we developed agriculture. (January 20, 2017)

Oddly enough, I haven’t seen anyone blame neolithic farmers for ending the last glacial maximum and creating the Sahara Desert.

Irrigation: Still Learning

Someone developed the first irrigation system, almost certainly within a few hours flight time from Lachish.

Not that airlines existed back then. Nobody’s lived in Lachish since Alexander the Great’s time and that’s yet again another topic.

Where was I? Beauty, order, radishes, neolithic farmers. Right.

Irrigation goes back a long time. Sunshu Ao designed dams and reservoirs during the Zhou’s Spring and Autumn period, Ximen Bao did the same in the Warring States period. And yes, things can be worse than the recent American election.

Amenemhat III, he and Erra-imitti were roughly contemporary, probably used the Faiyum Oasis as a reservoir. Nubians had been using sakia, a sort of waterwheel, before that; someone in ancient Persia may have done the first irrigating.

Or maybe it was someone else, somewhere else.

Bottom line, folks have been managing water resources for a long time. We’re getting pretty good at it. We’re also learning to avoid irrigation’s technical, legal, and environmental problems.

That doesn’t make irrigation bad, or good. It’s just another tool we’ve developed. Learning to use it wisely and well is up to us.

2. Banff Bison Rebound


(From Parks Canada; via Reuters, BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Bison returned to Banff last week after an absence of more than 100 years”
(BBC News))

“Bison return to Banff national park in Canada”
BBC News (February 6, 2017)

“A herd of plains bison have been successfully reintroduced to Canada’s oldest national park, more than 100 years after they were nearly hunted out of existence.

“The 16 bison were moved to the Banff National Park in Alberta last week.

“On Monday officials said the transfer had gone smoothly and the animals were adapting well to their new home.

“The move will restore their role in the park’s ecosystem, officials say, and has been welcomed by indigenous groups.

“The bison will be kept under observation in an enclosed pasture of the park in the foothills of the Rockies until the summer of 2018, Parks Canada officials say….”

Hunting the American bison to near-extinction was among my civilization’s more egregious lapses in judgement of the late 19th century. By 1900, an estimated bison population of about 60,000,000 was down to a few hundred.

That was then, this is now, and we’ve learned that natural resources aren’t infinite. I’ll get back to that. The American bison population is up to about 360,000 now: although some of the critters aren’t, or aren’t quite, purebred bison.

Critters with three-eighths bison DNA are beefalo, and generally look more like the Bos Taurus cattle we’re used to. First-generation B. Taurus-bison hybrids generally look like buffalo.3

Folks who say that American bison with a bit of Bos taurus DNA aren’t “real” bison have a point. On the other hand, maybe it’s a good thing that many of today’s critters are a trifle more genetically diverse than survivors of that population bottleneck.

I’ve opined on bulldogs, racial purity, and the Habsburgs, before. (January 13, 2017; August 5, 2016)

The American bison won’t be galloping across North America’s windswept prairies again. Not any time soon, apart from some areas we’ve set aside for colorful critters. Vast herds of bison and cropland wouldn’t get along.

That said, I’m glad that we gained a measure of wisdom in time to save the bison. The dodo and passenger pigeon were another story: so far.

Getting a Grip About the Walghvogel

My guess is that you read about the dodo in high school, or ran into the story in a discussion of endangered species. It’s a classic tale of man’s inhumanity to bird.

Heedless of their peril, the story goes, innocent dodos of Mauritius fell before the relentless onslaught of vicious club-wielding sailors.

The tale has an element of truth. Humans have eaten dodos, which most likely explains a Dutch name for them: walghvogel — “tasteless/insipid/sickly-bird.” Humans are omnivores, so we can eat just about anything.

But we do have our preferences, and dodo apparently wasn’t one of them.

Writhing in agony over the evils of man is still an option, though, since humans introduced egg-eating critters to Mauritius. Scientists have suggested that the dodo declined because dogs, pigs, cats, rats, and crab-eating macaques, ate their eggs.

I think the passenger pigeon’s demise makes a more convincing narrative.

Remembering the Passenger Pigeon


(From Smith Bennett, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(A passenger pigeon hunt, from The Illustrated Shooting and Dramatic News (July 3, 1875))

When the 19th century began, the passenger pigeon was the most common bird in North America: maybe in the world.

From the Rocky Mountains to the east coast, from the Gulf Coast to Lake Winnipeg and Lake Nipigon, they filled the sky:

“…The air was literally filled with Pigeons; the light of noon-day was obscured as by an eclipse….”
(“Ornithological biography…,” pp. 319–327John James Audubon, via Wikipedia)

That was in 1813.

Unlike the dodo, humans think passenger pigeons taste good. More accurately, we did. That may help explain a pre-16th-century close call they had with extinction: and conservation procedures developed by folks who were here before Columbus.

America’s Gilded Age was a good time for at least some northern factory owners and workers. We’ve learned quite a bit since then, but not in time for passenger pigeons.

Cutting down a great deal of this continent’s forests, and industrial-level hunting, made the passenger pigeon what we now call an endangered species by the 1880s.

Some laws intended to protect the birds resulted in the arrest of a few non-wealthy trappers, and that was about it. I give them and “E” for effort.

Audubon said that he’d sent 350 passenger pigeons to assorted English nobles. The London Zoo had a few on display at one point. At the start of the 20th century, there were three known flocks of captive passenger pigeons: in Milwaukee, Chicago, and Cincinnati.

Then, on September 1, 1914, the last known passenger pigeon, named Martha, died in the Cincinnati Zoo.

The good news is that we’ve still got a bit of passenger pigeon DNA. No one sample is complete, but piecing then together should be possible. Reviving the species may be a bit beyond what we can do today: but not by much.4

The real challenge may be in raising enough passenger pigeons at one time to re-start the species. Passenger pigeons were very social birds.

Some of 19th century in America was bad news, like pre-lawsuit hydraulic mining, extinction of the passenger pigeon, and near-extinction of the American bison. But it wasn’t all bad.

A remarkable number of folks in America finally decided that slavery was a bad idea. New technologies like antiseptics and the McCormick reaper helped reduce the number of folks killed by epidemics, famines, and doctors. (October 30, 2016)

On the other hand, some folks got the notion that science and technology will solve all our problems, which I think is as daft as assuming the opposite.5

Perceptions and Resources


(From NASA, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center’s map of Earth, from satellite images.)

Back in my ‘good old days,’ which I don’t miss, I’d occasionally read about Earth’s “infinite” resources.

That’s daft. Earth is a pretty big place, about 8,000 miles across, but infinite it’s not. The universe we live in, maybe, cosmologists aren’t sure about that.

If the mean spatial curvature of space-time is zero or negative, the universe has infinite volume. Maybe. That’s one of the many questions we didn’t know existed a few centuries back, and we’re still working on the answer(s). (January 29, 2017; September 30, 2016)

Getting back to resources and perceptions, folks like John Filson were probably trying to encourage others to settle in places like Kentucky:

“…Many mills are already built on this stream, some of which are represented in the map, and will have a plentiful supply of water in the dryest seasons. … Here is great plenty of fine cane, on which the cattle feed, and grow fat….”
(“The Discovery, Settlement and Present State of Kentucke,” John Filson (1784) via Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln)

Real estate marketing isn’t quite so lyrical these days, but I think it’s just as optimistic.

Anything involving people is seldom, if ever, simple; but I’ll try to avoid leaving out major points of the last few centuries.

Folks started coming to North America in wholesale lots somewhere around the 1830s. Immigration has had ups and downs since then. It still gives some folks conniptions, but not me. (February 1, 2017; January 22, 2017; November 29, 2016)

Folks like George Perkins Marsh and John Muir realized that cutting down trees without planting new ones is a bad idea.6

Folks started paying attention a bit before last passenger pigeon died, but I think it wasn’t until the 1960s that many got the message. Stewart Udall arguably gets some credit for the turnaround.

“…The modern land raiders, like the public-land raiders of another era, are ready to justify short-term gains by seeking to minimize the long-term losses. ‘Present the repair bill to the next generation’ has always been their unspoken slogan….”
(“The Quiet Crisis,” Stewart L. Udall (1963) via the Intenet Archive)

By then the notion that science and technology will solve all our problems had worn thin.7

Today’s Needs: and Tomorrow’s

From the International Space Station program and the JSC Earth Science & Remote Sensing Unit, ARES Division, Exploration Integration Science Directorate. ISS007-E-10807 (21 July 2003) - This view of Earth's horizon as the sunsets over the Pacific Ocean was taken by an Expedition 7 crewmember onboard the International Space Station (ISS).Thinking only of myself, or today’s desires, isn’t an option. Private ownership is a good idea, and so is using natural resources: within reason. But when I use today’s resources, I must remember the needs of future generations. (Catechism, 2401, 2415, 2456)

I’ve talked about the universal destination of goods before. (September 25, 2016)

Assuming that irresponsibility is okay because someone will invent a gadget tomorrow that will solve today’s problems doesn’t, I think, make sense.

That’s particularly true if we can at least start learning how to solve the problems now.

I also think that taking time to think through solutions makes sense.

Until the mid-20th century, for example, forest managers assumed that wildfires were always a bad thing.

That started changing in the 1960s, when folks noticed that no new giant sequoia were growing. It took time, but now fire is recognized as an important part of a forest’s life cycle.

My guess is that we still don’t know everything there is to know about life on Earth. But we’re learning.

Pessimism’s Persistent Popularity

I’m not sure why pessimism has such durable popularity.

Maybe it goes back to the days when Greco-Roman doctors figured there were four personalty types: sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic. Folks who were “melancholic” were analytical, wise and quiet.

That’s not a bad set of qualities.

Something like two dozen centuries later, we’ve learned a bit, and words have changed. In my language, melancholy means a persistently gloomy state of mind, or depression.

Along the way, melancholia has been seen as a disease, demonic possession, and an art movement. That last could explain some angsty artist wannabes. Having lived with it for decades, I see nothing ‘artistic’ or attractive about depression, and that’s still another topic. (October 5, 2016; September 4, 2016)

I’m pretty sure that gloominess is not next to Godliness. We’re supposed to desire happiness, and hope is a virtue. (Catechism, 33, 1718, 1817)

Still Learning


(From WiNG, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)

Over the last million years, we’ve learned to use fire without killing ourselves. But it’s still not a “safe” technology.

Cities don’t burn as regularly as they once did, but urban fires happen: like the Edinburgh Cowgate fire and Lac-Mégantic derailment. We’re fine-tuning building codes, and learning that following pesky rules about storing flammable material is a good idea.

The trick is using humanity’s accumulated wisdom, and applying it to everyday life. Most of the time, we do a pretty good job: my opinion.

Sometimes mistakes are made. Then, most of the time, we clean up the mess and move on.

The problem isn’t the tech: it’s us.

“For mischief comes not out of the earth, nor does trouble spring out of the ground;
“2 But man himself begets mischief, as sparks fly upward.”
(Job 5:6–7)

The good news is that we are still learning, getting smarter: and perhaps a little wiser.

Somewhat-related posts:

1 Bogs, fens, swamps, and all that:

2 Climate and agriculture background, the most recent 10 millennia:

3 The fall and rise of American bison:

4 Extinct birds:

5 More of my take on science, technology, and being human:

6 Wood actually does grow on trees. Tree farms are part of Minnesota’s economy, and we’re not alone. A very partial list:

7 Resources and perceptions:

Posted in Science News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Natural Law, Our Rules

Posted on February 5, 2017 by Brian H. Gill

Back in my ‘good old days,’ a half-century back, some claimed that science, technology, and a changing culture, made the ‘outmoded morality’ we’d been working with obsolete.

Others apparently believed that moral decay was caused by newfangled gadgets like the telephone and television: and, of course, ‘Satanic’ rock music.

About rock music, I agreed that many songs were an attack on society’s values:

“…Creature comfort goals
They only numb my soul
And make it hard for me to see….”
“Pleasant Valley Sunday” (1967)
The Monkees, via lyrics.wikia.com

But I was one of those crazy kids who thought buying stuff you don’t need with money you don’t have to impress folks you don’t like — made no sense. And that’s another topic.

Folks who claimed that a changing world made ‘conventional morality’ obsolete were right: sort of.

That may seem odd, coming from a Catholic who agrees with Fulton Sheen:

“Right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong.”
(“Life Is Worth Living” (1951-1957), Program 19, The Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, via Wikiquotes)

I’m quite sure that “right is right” in all places and all times, and that the rules we use occasionally need changing: like when horses are no longer the fastest things on the road.

EEK! The Devil!!!

The trouble started around 1672, when Ferdinand Verbiest, a Jesuit missionary, designed a steam-powered vehicle for the Kangxi Emperor.

Verbiest’s notes say the ‘car’ would have been 65 centimeters, 25.6 inches, long: too small for practical use. We don’t know if the prototype was ever built.

The design may have been based on the aeolipiles of Vitruvius and Hero of Alexandria, with an open steam turbine added.

Fast-forward to 1769. Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot’s fardier à vapeur/steam dray may not have knocked down a wall, but it didn’t pass the test-drive stage.

Cugnot was rewarded for his innovative work, and the fardier was eventually moved to the Conservatoire national des arts et métiers.

William Murdoch built a working prototype “road locomotive” in 1784. James Watt and Matthew Boulton said it wasn’t practical, and that’s yet another topic. Topics.

“…One story often told, … is that one night Murdoch decided to test his carriage outside on the open road and it soon outpaced him, leaving him to chase after it. Whilst chasing it he encountered a local clergyman in a state of considerable distress who had mistaken his carriage, with its billowing smoke and fire burning under the boiler, for the devil. This story may be accurate, however is more likely to relate to a model than to a full size steam carriage….”
(“William Murdoch: Steam Carriage,” Grace’s Guide to British Industrial History)

The “local clergyman” wasn’t the only one upset by new ideas and tech in the 1700s. I’ve talked about ‘affronts’ to the Almighty like lightning rods and smallpox inoculations, and a Pope’s response to “a precious discovery,” before. (October 16, 2016; August 21, 2016)

New Circumstances, New Rules


(Amédée Bollée’s L’Obéissante, 1875)

Steam-powered road vehicles apparently gave some folks conniptions, so the United Kingdom’s Parliament started churning out Locomotove Acts in 1861. The best-remembered one may be the Red Flag Act of 1865.1

That’s the one requiring a crew of three for each self-propelled vehicle: a driver; a stoker; and a man with a red flag walking at least 60 yards, 55 meters, ahead. They could legally scoot along at four miles an hour, two in towns.

Legislators in America passed similar laws, but the genie was already out of the bottle.

Dr. J.W. Carhart’s 1871 steam-powered vehicle led to the State of Wisconsin’s 1875 offer of $10,000 reward for the first practical substitute for the use of horses and other animals. The Legislature awarded half of the prize in 1879.

Amédée Bollée developed and started building steam-powered road vehicles in 1873.

Lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic eventually realized that red flags and a four mile an hour speed limit were impractical, unnecessary, and more than a little ridiculous.

Ideas behind the regulations weren’t completely daft, though. We still have vehicle registration, registration plates, speed limits,2 and maximum vehicle weights.

Some of the ideas behind the Roman Republic’s multi-tier status system made sense, too.

Isus Positum, Positive Law: Human-Made Rules

Under ancient Roman law, a person’s status mattered. Someone could be a Roman citizen (status civitatis); free (status libertatis); have a position in a Roman family (status familiae) as head (pater familias), or some lower member; or someone living by another law (alieni iuris).

Below the rest were slaves: but they weren’t persons, not legally.

That last was not a basically sound idea. Treating a person like merchandise is a bad idea and we shouldn’t to it. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2414)

These days, American law recognizes differences between citizens born here and naturalized citizens, foreign visitors, minors and adults. How folks should be treated has been debated since before the Second Continental Congress.

We aren’t all alike, and aren’t supposed to be. Recognizing those differences makes sense. Ignoring our equal dignity doesn’t. (Catechism, 1934-1938, 2334)

The Roman Republic’s system wasn’t perfect, but it worked for five centuries before the Senate bollixed things up to the point where they needed an emperor.

America’s system has been working for nearly 227 years, 240 if you count the Articles of Confederation. It’s not perfect, either, which is why we’re still fine-tuning it.

Roman and American laws are an examples of ius positum, or positive law: human-made laws that define how folks may act, and what rights we have.

The ‘conventional morality’ that some folks got fed up with in ‘the good old days’ was positive law: something that folks, mostly Anglo-Saxon Protestant men, had concocted.

Like Roman law, it had worked pretty well. But by the 1960s, that system of positive law was long overdue for overhaul.

I do not miss living in a society where “she’s as smart as a man” was supposed to be a compliment, and a person had to look like me to get a decent job. I remember the ‘good old days:’ and they weren’t.

Lex Naturalis, Natural Law: Universal Principles, Changing Applications

Folks at least as far back as Plato and Aristotle discussed what we call natural law, lex naturalis.

I’m Catholic, so I accept St. Thomas Aquinas’ idea that natural law is universal, unchanging, and designed by God. (Catechism, 1952-1960)

Natural law is ‘programmed’ into us, part of reality that we can understand through reason. It lets us recognize good and evil, truth and lies. (Catechism, 1954)

Natural law does not change. Doing evil so that good will follow is never acceptable. The Golden Rule always applies; we must always respect our neighbor, and our neighbor’s conscience. (Matthew 7:12; Catechism, 1789, 1958)

How natural law is applied varies a great deal. Folks in different cultures and eras face different circumstances. But the underlying principles of natural law do not change. (Catechism, 1957)

Ideally, following natural law would be easy. We would all love God, love our neighbor, and see everyone as our neighbor; and act accordingly. (Matthew 22:36–40, Mark 12:28–31; Matthew 5:43–44; Mark 12:28–31; Luke 10:25–30; Catechism, 1825)

We do not live in an ideal world.

When the first of us decided to break God’s rule, we lost the harmony we had with God and with this world. We’ve been dealing with consequences of that decision ever since. (Catechism, 397-406)

But we are still human: made in the image of God, with responsibilities and the freedom to choose right or wrong. (Genesis 1:26–27; Catechism, 307, 355-361, 1701-1709, 1730, 1853, 2293-2295, 2415-2418)

Building a Better World

Positive law works best when it’s close to natural law, universal ethical principles built into the universe.

Positive law changes: and must change, as conditions we live in change.

Natural law is the same now as it was when Abram moved out of Ur.

Killing innocent people, for example, was wrong then. It will still be wrong when the Code of Hammurabi, United Nations Charter, and whatever comes next, are seen as roughly contemporary. (Catechism, 1954-1960, 2259-2262, 2268-2270)

Part of our job is bringing the positive laws of our cultures closer to natural law. (Catechism, 1928-1942)

I don’t think we’ll have a perfect society two millennia, or ten millennia, from now.

But if we keep working with all people of good will, keeping what is true and good in our societies, changing what is not, we have a reasonable hope of building a better world. We certainly must try:

1 More:

2 Speed limits vary, depending on where you are. Some roads, like some autobahns, have no speed limit, some parts of the United States only have speed limits if you get caught, and that’s yet again another topic. More:

Posted in Being Catholic | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Footprints in Ancient Ash

Posted on February 3, 2017 by Brian H. Gill

Scientists are pretty sure that Saccorhytus coronarius is an ancestor of lancets, sea squirts, fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, and mammals: including us.

Much more recently, about 3,660,000 years back, five Australopithecus afarensis strolled across volcanic ash. One of them was “astonishingly larger” than any other A. afarensis we know of. Exactly what that means isn’t, I think, clear. Not yet.

  1. Tiny Critter, Big Mouth; and an Early Ancestor
  2. Footprints

Humility, Catholic Style

Humility, the Catholic version, is accepting reality and acknowledging that God’s God.

“HUMILITY: The virtue by which a Christian acknowledges that God is the author of all good. Humility avoids inordinate ambition or pride, and provides the foundation for turning to God in prayer (2559). Voluntary humility can be described as ‘poverty of spirit’ (2546).”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary)

I’ve talked about humility, hubris, and getting a grip, before. (August 28, 2016; August 26, 2016; July 31, 2016)

Rejecting reality, avoiding truth, isn’t an option for me. Not if I take my faith seriously.

Faith, the Catholic version, is a willing and conscious “assent to the whole truth that God has revealed.” (Catechism, 142–150)

Truth, whether it’s expressed in words, “the rational expression of the knowledge of created and uncreated reality;” or “the order and harmony of the cosmos;” or in other ways — is important, and beautiful. (Catechism, Prologue, 27, 74, 2500, 2505, more under Truth in the index)

Noticing God’s infinite beauty reflected in “the world’s order and beauty” tells us a little about God. Again, if we’re paying attention. (Catechism, 31–32, 341)

A thirst for truth and happiness is written into each of us. If we’re doing our job right, it’ll lead us to God. (Catechism, 27)

I went over this last month, and almost certainly will again. (January 13, 2017)

Reality and Faith

There are some odd notions about faith and reason, science and religion, floating around. But I’m a Catholic, so using my brain is okay. It’s a requirement, actually. (Catechism, 154, 159, 1951, 1778, 2293)

I’ve said that before, too. Often. (December 23, 2016; December 9, 2016; October 5, 2016; August 28, 2016)

Basically, I think accepting reality makes sense: even if — particularly if — that means learning something new.

1. Tiny Critter, Big Mouth; and an Early Ancestor


(From Cambridge University, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Artist’s reconstruction of Saccorhytus coronarius, based on the original fossil finds. The actual creature was probably no more than a millimetre in size”
(BBC News))

(From Jian Han et al., via Nature, used w/o permission.)
(“Reconstruction of Saccorhytus coronarius … Lateral, hind and ventral views….”
(Jian Han et al., via Nature))

“Scientists find ‘oldest human ancestor’”
Pallab Ghosh, BBC News (January 30, 2017)

“Researchers have discovered the earliest known ancestor of humans – along with a vast range of other species.

“They say that fossilised traces of the 540-million-year-old creature are ‘exquisitely well preserved’.

“The microscopic sea animal is the earliest known step on the evolutionary path that led to fish and – eventually – to humans….”

Saccorhytus coronarius lived about 540,000,000 million years back, during the early Cambrian explosion. That was when most phyla we have today showed up.

A phylum is the taxonomic rank below kingdom and above class. Phyla can be define by genetic or body plan similarities, thinking of plants having a body plan seems odd, and that’s another topic.

“Taxonomy” is a five-dollar word for the habit we have of sorting critters into categories: like plant, animal, or fungus. We’ve probably been doing that since day one, but the current systems go back to Carl Linnaeus.

I’ve talked about taxonomy and what we’ve been learning since my high school years before. (September 23, 2016)

Artist’s reconstructions like the one in the BBC News piece help folks ‘see’ what scientists are talking about, but necessarily involve a little imagination. I doubt that we can be sure about the colors, for example.

On the other hand, these fossils really were remarkably well-preserved.

Identifying Parts


(From Jian Han et al., via Nature, used w/o permission.)
(“Saccorhytus was also covered with a thin, relatively flexible skin and muscles. It probably moved around by wriggling”
(BBC News))

(From Jian Han, Northwest University, China; via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“Saccorhytus coronarius gen. et sp. nov. from the Cambrian Kuanchuanpu Formation, South China….”
(Jian Han et al., via Nature))

This is what the scientists had to work with. As I said, the level of detail is impressive, particularly since the critters were only about a millimeter across.

Jian Han and the rest are reasonably sure that the feature marked “M” is a mouth, and they’re pretty sure there weren’t any eyes.

Features other than the mouth almost certainly had some function, but exactly what they did is still a mystery. For now, they’re mostly labeled by what they look like.

Lbc1 through Lbc4 and Lbc1 through Lbc4 are the left (L) and right (R) body cones one through four, for example.

Now, about these critters being the “earliest known ancestor of humans.”

Saccorhytus coronarius is the the earliest-known deuterostome, a broad category of animals that have the same general pattern of embryonic development. Some scientists call it a superphylum, since it includes three phyla.1

Life on Earth has changed, a lot, over the last half-billion years, and that’s yet another topic.

2. Footprints


(From Dawid A. Iurino, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(“The footprints may have been made by a male walking with smaller females and juveniles”
(BBC News))

“Fossil footprints tell story of human origins”
Helen Briggs, BBC News (December 14, 2016)

“Footprints made by early humans millions of years ago have been uncovered in Tanzania close to where similar tracks were found in the 1970s.

“The impressions were made when some of our distant relatives walked together across wet volcanic ash.

“Their makers, most likely Australopithecus afarensis, appear to have had a wide range of body sizes.

“Scientists say this gives clues to how this ancient species of human lived….”

Australopithecus afarensis lived in east Africa between 3,900,000 and 2,900,000 years ago. I’m not sure whether they’re a ‘what’ or a ‘who,’ but I’m guessing it’s ‘who.’

“Lucy,” our name for a now-famous A. afarensis skeleton, was about 1.1 meters (3 feet 7 inches), tall and weighed around 29 kilograms (64 pounds).

That’s short by today’s standards, even in places like Bolivia and Indonesia, where women average 1.42 meters (4 feet 8 inches) and 1.47, meters (4 feet 10 inches).

I talked about Lucy and A. afarensis last year. (September 23, 2016)

What’s “average” depends on who you listen to, and where you are. I grew up among Norwegian- and German-Americans, so although I’m about “average” height for man, globally, I still think of myself as “short,” and that’s yet again another topic.

Anyway, the Australopithecus afarensis model was much shorter than today’s. They had slightly longer arms, for their height, than we do; and were probably a bit better at climbing trees. They walked like we do, though. The big differences were above the neck.

A. afaransis had room for about 380 to 430 cubic centimeters of brain. Today’s model, the European version at least, runs from about 975 to 1499 cubic centimeters.

Size isn’t everything, but my guess is that most if not all A. afarensis would have had a terrible time trying to pass their ACT or SAT: or blending into a crowd.

Tools and People

That doesn’t, I think, make them not-people.

The earliest stone tools we’ve found are about 3,300,000 years old and were in the same area.

Quite a few animals use tools, but it’s likely that A. afarensis made these.

They’re not up to the standards I’d expect to see in a Home Depot; but upwards of three million years later, I’d hope that we’d made some improvements.

Oldowan tools, like those choppers, came along later, about 600,000 years after Lucy’s day.

They were a leading technology in east Africa from around 2,600,000 to 1,700,000 years ago, before folks invented Acheulean tools in east and southern Africa

Oldowan tools were still in use a hundred thousand years after that, where northern China is today.

But the new tech eventually caught on, showing up in today’s France and China.

Oldowan choppers are like a hatchet without a handle.

They’re good for — well, for chopping — food, wood, or other softish materials.

An equivalent kitchen item is today’s mezzaluna. Obviously, the design has changed a bit over the last few million years.

I think it’s likely that “Lucy” was “human” in the sense of being a person.

It’s not just tool use or walking upright.

We’ve learned that ArhGAP11B, a gene that’s unique to humans, showed up roughly 5,000,000 years back. The gene affects brain size: particularly the neocortex.

Another uniquely-human ‘brain gene,’ SRGAP2, showed up later. (January 13, 2017; September 23, 2016)

Between making tools, looking a bit like us, and being around long after a uniquely-human gene appeared: yeah, I’m willing to think that “Lucy” may have been a person.2

“Astonishingly Larger”


(From Raffaella Pellizzon, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
(The footprints were made in volcanic ash about 3,660,000 years ago)

“…The newly discovered footprints may have been made by a male walking with smaller females.

“‘This novel evidence, taken as a whole with the previous findings, portrays several early hominins moving as a group through the landscape following a volcanic eruption and subsequent rainfall. But there is more,’ said lead researcher Prof Giorgio Manzi, director of the archaeological project in Tanzania.

“‘The footprints of one of the new individuals are astonishingly larger than anyone else’s in the group, suggesting that he was a large male member of the species.

“‘In fact, the 165cm stature indicated by his footprints makes him the largest Australopithecus specimen identified to date.’…”
(Helen Briggs, BBC News)

“…A possible tentative conclusion is that the various individuals represented at Laetoli are: S1, a male; G2 and S2, females; G1 and G3, smaller females or juvenile individuals….”
(Fidelis T Masao et al, eLife3)

165 centimeters, 1.65 meters, 5 feet 5 inches, is taller than some men in my extended family. Either that individual was really tall by then-contemporary standards, or our sampling of A. afarensis is skewed: which is far from impossible.

We haven’t found all that many examples of A. afarensis.

Not all critters, people included, become fossils. I’m not convinced that our preferred habitats favor fossilization.

The habit of burying our dead might or might not help, particularly since that’s not the only option we’ve developed for dealing with death, and that’s still another topic. Topics. (November 11, 2016; September 23, 2016)

I’m reasonably sure that the five individuals were about as tall as the scientists say they were. We’ve learned a great deal about how critters, people included, move since Aristotle realized that animals can be viewed as mechanical systems.3

Analysis, Sexual Dimorphism, and Dignity

The size, depth, and spacing of the footprints tell us a lot: including how big the folks were, and how fast they were moving. In this case, they were all walking; slowly. The scientists got speeds of about 0.44 to 0.9 meters per second, depending on which analysis method they used.

That sort of analysis I’m pretty confident about.

Whether we’re looking at a family group that’s organized along ‘gorilla’ lines or not: that, I’m not so sure about.

We may learn that the Laetoli footprints were made by a good 50th percentile sample of the A. afarensis population. If they are, that model’s sexual dimorphism was probably a lot greater than today’s.

Sexual dimorphism is the (average) difference between males and females in a species.

Like most, but not all, primates, human males are bigger than females. My side of humanity, for example, is on average 15% heavier than my wife’s, and a bit taller.

That’s on average, of course. Humans aren’t particularly dimorphic, so I’ve known quite a few women who are taller than I am, and men who are around my wife’s height.

Screwball politics of the last few decades being what they are, I’d better say that I don’t think I’m better than folks who are shorter than I am. But I also think pretending that women and men are identical, apart from cultural conditioning, is daft.

We have equal dignity, and that’s — what else? — another topic. (Genesis 1:27; Catechism, 2334)

Assumptions

Getting back to the Laetoli footprints, assuming that those five individuals were all part of the same family seems reasonable.

Assuming they were typical of all A. afarensis, not so much. But maybe they were. That’s something that’ll be easier to figure out when we have more data.

For now, just looking at the footprints, we could be looking at all individuals in one family; where the father is much taller than the wife/wives and kids. That doesn’t make the family structure gorilla-like.

They could have been a family not unlike mine; where the son is the tallest, followed in descending order by the father, some of the kids, the mother, and another one of the kids.

Or they could be the mothers and kids from two or more families, being escorted across an ash field by “Tiny.” The other menfolk might figure they could trust Tiny to deal with any dangers along the way, and that their wives would keep him in line.

Besides, if they were scouting out a good place to stop for the night, the outsize one of their number might not have been a good choice for a ‘stealth’ mission.

I’ll grant that having a mostly-Irish father and five-foot-nothing black-haired ekte norsk mother gives me a particular viewpoint.

I’m quite sure there are other possible ways to look at the data: and that scientists will be discussing them.

Had enough? If not, there’s more:

1 More than you need, and possibly want, to know about:

2 Australopithecus afarensis, ‘brain genes,’ and humanity’s past:

3 Footprints and using our brains:

Posted in Science News | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment