As Chehalis elders reminded a visiting anthropologist in 1926, human power strong enough to heal is also power strong enough to kill. It would not have surprised them that the third leading cause of death in the US today, after cancer and heart disease, is undergoing a medical procedure.
Today we are great at developing new technologies– but not so great at considering the results of applying them– or even understanding what those results might be. Thus we sorely need the “precautionary principle” instituted in European Union countries and some municipalities in the U.S. That principle states, “No data, no market” with respect to innovative technologies. That is, we shouldn’t market such new technologies until we have researched their safety. As modern philosopher Andrew Light observed, we look both ways before crossing the street even though we are not one hundred per cent certain a car is coming. We might certainly apply the same basic standard of precaution to the thousands of new chemicals and genetically engineered foods their developers are releasing annually into our shared environment.
Indeed we might apply parallel standards of care to all human technology. Take the example of the wildfires currently burning everywhere in the West. One could hardly find a more basic form of human technology than fire. Learning to set that first fire was an important step for humans. No more cold winters and raw meat. It seems we like this about ourselves. Western culture cheers those who “set the world on fire”. But that does not absolve us of choices. A deed that is “world burning” is only a good thing until we come face to face with global warming. And even a single campfire may spread out of control and set someone else’s house on fire if not properly handled.
We might do well mull over traditional stories told by indigenous Northwesterners such as the Chehalis, which encouraged care in dealing with fire-and by extension, with all human technology. Fires burned on the prairies between the land of the living and the land of the dead in such tales. In one story, Bluejay has to cross these prairies-and learn lessons about how to deal with fire-lest he get himself burned up and relegated to the land of the dead forever.
This story taught pragmatic lessons to those who regularly gathered in inter-tribal groups to set fires to clear out the underbrush in their landscapes that otherwise provided fuel for more dangerous fires. At the same time their fires encouraged habitat for game animals and important food crops. Those fires were essential, and they set then with care.
Without their own stories that helped them deal with fire, pioneers stopped native burning and suppressed fires started by natural causes. Smokey the Bear became our icon. But that didn’t exactly work out as planned. If an area has no small fires, fire fuel builds up there. When that area does burn in the inevitable course of things, it burns with a larger and hotter fire. Today Forest Service policies have put that lesson into effect to allow for controlled burning and/or fires started by natural causes to burn unabated.
Fire is not good or bad in itself. It is not a matter of whether we should laud it or outlaw it. Instead we have to learn how to handle it. And as the example of fire illustrates, in learning how to handle it, we must account for the cumulative and spreading effects of our actions. In parallel fashion, we must assess the health effects of chemicals currently in production before we release new ones into the environment, as stressed in a memo sent recently to the members of Congress crafting the Kid-Safe chemicals Act by the Science and Environmental Health Network.
I am impressed by the compassion for their fellow citizens exhibited under emergency conditions. Last night (July 10) shelters housing those who evacuated because of the fire in Spokane issued a call for donated toys. They were flooded with so many responses, in only a few hours they had to issue a request to stop sending donations.
But on the flip side of our compassion, we have our carelessness. It is true that wildfires may be started by lightning strikes-and these in turn are exaggerated by global warming and its destabilizing weather patterns. But it’s also true that the vast majority of the thousands of wildfires burning in northern California were started not by lightning but by individual humans.
It seems our frontier mentality is still with us. According to the dictum of “full steam ahead” and “dam the torpedoes”. asking an entrepeneur to pause in getting a designer chemical to market is an unpatriotic as throwing a damper on a firecracker on the Fourth of July.
The Fourth of July gave campers in northern California ample opportunity to start the majority of thousands of wildfires there. My neighbor related her own experience celebrating the Fourth of July on the beach where crowds gathered to set off fireworks. She watched a father hand his toddler a lit bottle rocket- I imagine he wanted to share the excitement of shooting it off with him. The toddler, not knowing quite what to do with it, turned around in a circle and finally launched it-into the open door of the family van. Out of the van poured the rest of the family who happened to be lounging there out of the wind to watch the family fireworks. Then someone remembered the rest of their fireworks were still in the van. Back in they went with sand and water and fortunately captured the miscreant firework which miraculously hadn’t lit anything else on fire.
While my neighbor was laughing, she heard a whoosh and turned around to note that someone from another family group had tossed a sparkler into the backseat of her own car through an open window. After they managed to put it out, her family went home. They had had all the fun they wanted for one night.
Some seem to hold to the idea that if we’re on vacation, nothing bad could happen to us. We’ve entered a realm where none of the cautions we otherwise use in daily life apply. That’s the frontier mentality as well: if we’re pushing the boundaries of human technology, nothing bad will happen as a result.
As a first step in rectifying such abdications of caution, it would help to name things correctly. Just as we can’t rightly call the recent flooding in Cedar Rapids, Iowa a “natural disaster” (since it was due to the breaking of levies humans built to protect houses situated in a flood plain), we can’t blame the wildfires burning in the West “natural” disaster. There are a number of dams in Oregon with cracks in their infrastructure-dams holding back water from the flood plains where currently reside hundreds of thousands of people. If those dams break under stress, as did the levies in New Orleans and Cedar Rapids, it’s ignoring our own responsibility to label the results a “natural” disaster. And acknowledging our responsibility is the first step to taking care of both ourselves and our environment.
Assuming such responsibility allows us to learn from our mistakes. Forest Service policy aside, things haven’t changed much since pioneer times on the score of our carelessness with fire in the Pacific Northwest. Those who played out the bottle rocket version of keystone cops on the beach were only following precedent. The year before first Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens came to announce his unacceptable treaty provisions to the indigenous folks on the Olympic Peninsula, local emigrants accidentally set the forest on fire during their own Fourth of July celebration. That fire raged out of control until the autumn rains finally put it out.
By the time Washington became a state things weren’t going much better. That year was 1889, the same year a Seattle fire consumed two dozen business blocks and all the mills and wharfs on the bay, in spite of the help of volunteer firemen from Victoria to Portland. A similarly devastating fire hit Spokane in late summer of that year, as did fires that took much of downtown Vancouver and destroyed parts of Ellensburg, Goldendale and Roslyn. As a Snohomish County pioneer put it, it seemed “inevitable in all pioneer towns” that fire “virtually destroyed the entire town”.
As smoke pours into the Willamette Valley and hunkers down here from the thousands of wildfires burning in northern California, I am reminded of an historical image relayed to me by venerable Lower Chehalis elder Nina Baumgartner. When the first Scotsman arrived on the Olympic Peninsula with his red hair flying out in all directions, her people joked that they thought his head was on fire. This joke was about more than appearance. Baumgartner went on to relate the tale in which Bluejay crosses those burning prairies– which she emphatically slanted toward the necessity of being careful with fire.
With our heads set on “full steam ahead”, we don’t dwell on the disastrous potential of our power. We forget that what seems adventurous or profitable in the moment might eventually burn down our neighbor’s house-or give our children cancer.
But to balance that dangerous foolishness is the level of community response that brought firefighters from Portland to Victoria on the scene in Seattle in 1889-the same kind of community response that caused those fighting California fires to travel 24 hours and then begin their work without sleep.
Imagine if we could put such community feeling to work on caring for the future of our shared planet, as those in the Science and Environmental Health Network are currently doing.
Olympia Peninsula elder Nina Baumgartner’s people had ten thousand years to learn how to live in partnership with their land–and to observe the effects of their own actions. We don’t have the luxury of such timing. But the precautionary principle, which states that human innovations need to be proved harmless before enacted, is a good place to start. This principle helps compensate for the intersection of the limits of human knowledge with the power of human actions. It helps protect humans and natural systems from harm as did traditional indigenous stories stressing care in how we use our power.
Rachel’s Environmental Weekly provides a wealth of information on the movement to institute the precautionary principle around the world (Precaution Reporter): http://www.rachel.org/
Science and Environmental Health Network: http://www.sehn.org/
You are always welcome to link to this post. Note, however, it is copyright 2008, by Madronna Holden, and if you wish to copy it, please email for permission. Thanks.
Filed under: Contrasting worldviews, Environmental psychology, Folklore and Oral Tradition, Indigenous, Our Earth and Ourselves | Tagged: culture and environment, Environmental psychology, fire ecology, Folklore and Oral Tradition
A few thoughts off the top of my head-
I think the recent trend towards biofuels is a great example of this. We know there is a problem so the first quick and non-painful solution is implemented, even though that solution has turned out to be an idea that has major flaws.
We can look at this like the pendulum of a clock. As the problem has become bigger and harder to solve, we rush to implement a solution that swings the pendulum faster and higher, forcing us to implement a new solution that pushes us into a new problem.
Ex: Gas prices -> Biofuels -> Higher prices for food commodities – > Larger downturn in economy -> Higher gas prices.
At some point we need to slow down, accept there is no short turn, quick, painless solution and implement a long term strategy for solving our world’s problems.
Great point and example, Jeremy.
I am especially taken with the fact that a large number of US manufacturers are making two sets of goods: one which holds to the safety requirements of the European Union and its REACH program for chemical safety–and one for sale in the US, which requires no such details. So manufacturers are making perfectly economically viable and safe products to be sold elsewhere, but not here. I think this is inexcusable– especially given the effects of these chemicals on households like yours, that have young children. Here is a link that will help you choose safe products for your family while we stall on the precautionary principle.
http://www.womenandenvironment.org
Meanwhile we should all be thinking about the long range implications of our actions. Biofuels from food products like corn- given that there have been food riots all over the world this year are not a great choice.
Your last statement about the need for a long term strategy that may also require something of us that a “quick fix” doesn’t– is much to the point.
Thanks for the comment.
We seem to want everything as quickly as possible here in the U.S. I just finished the book Fast Food Nation which has a section on how much of the beef sold in the U.S. cannot be sold in the UK. It would not pass their inspections. But, many plants, clean out all of their machines, get healthier cows (i.e. ones that can walk to slaughter on their own four hooves), and slow down their assemble lines to a rate where workers stop slicing themselves to produce hamburger that can be sold to the EU. But, for my son, they think that the other meat is good enough. I am pretty sure that it is not. I have unintentionally stopped eating red meat since I read that book. As sick as it sounds, until I can look into the eyes of the cow I intend to eat and know exactly where it was born and where it grew up, it will not end up in my or my child’s body.
Good for you and for your child, Katie!
Right now, there are fires burning along the Interstate 5 corridor between Eugene and Salem. I have never been directly affected by a wildfire before today. I was on my way from Albany to Salem and got stuck on the Freeway for 30 minutes. I was one of the lucky people that got off and made it to Jefferson before they closed off the roads. When I was driving by the fire, I was no more than 10 feet away from firefighters trying to extinguish the fires burning in the fields along the road. After my meeting in Salem, I was listening to the radio and had to completely go around the freeway and it took me an extra hour to get home. The radio said that the fire has spread to a hill full of trees and undergrowth and was not burning at 20 acres. They had over 50 different fire truck units there and it had gotten so bad that they had to call in air support.
I was driving after seeing that and was thinking about all of the trees there that had been growing since I was little. Never has that mountain been bare since I could remember. Most of these trees were over 20 years old, but they were burned to the ground in less than an hour. I also felt bad for all of the animals living in that area! (I am a sap for animals).
It was so amazing to think that those trees were growing for well over a decade, but they were destroyed in minutes. Our communities have come together to help battle this fire that keeps changing course. ODOT, Six Different fire stations (Jefferson, Linn County, Albany, etc). Oregon State Police, and The Sheriffs office are all involved to try to stop this fire before it hits the especially dry fields only a few hundred yards away.
I wonder what started these, Haylee. Must have been harrowing to drive through. I know the summers in the Willamette Valley are usually dry, but this summer it has been so dry and windy I’ve been watering my native plants. They might survive without, but they certainly seem unhappy.
From following the news, I understand what causes most of the forest fires. Just a few years back, a firefighter was convicted of intentionally starting a fire that lasted for months. His reason was that he wanted seasonal work. Many careless backpackers forget to put out the fires they built for warming themselves or lighting a cigarette.
While the Kayapo Indians burned an area and quickly planted a variety of grains and vegetables to sustain themselves and well as enrich the soil with the ashes, persons of lesser intellect burn forests for fun or out of negligence.
We are witnessing the human power daily, in helping peoples in distant lands like Africa, and at the same time leveling magestic mountains for air-polluting coal in West Virginia.
A perspective that illustrates Hegel’s statement that humans can be the best of creatures because we can be the worst. Now the time has come for us to be the best if we wish to survive on our shared planet: both carelessness and greed are no longer functional (if they ever were).
I just witnessed a great example of the best in the Oregon Bus Project that takes young people all over the state to work in support of progressive causes.
http://busproject.org/
I have actually been employed by the U.S. Forest Service for 6 years and have worked first hand on many of the fires you mentioned in this article. While it is true that many fires are caused by human carelessness, and cannot be coined Natural Disasters, I think that there is more to the story than just that. For example, within the western United States, there are burn cycles, just as there were back in the days of Native Americans and fire, which, whether human caused or natural caused had the same effect on nature. These plants and other species of trees are adapted to this specific burn cycle and thrive off of any burn that moves through the area. It is true that humans cause a lot of unnecessary fires that can potentially do great deal of damage to the land, however, lightning and other natural fire starters can start in places that will create just as much if not more damage when burning out of control. Humans have impacted the use of fire on land for many years. For example Smokey the bear was created to prevent human caused fires and the 10 a.m. policy went into effect, which stated all fires would be put out by 10.am. the next morning. Back in the first days of fire, people did not really know how to control it and they let it burn out of control and it destroyed many towns and villages. This created a fear of fire that swept over the United States and made fire seem like an evil force. However, the United States Forest Service has since put in a policy of seek and destroy which essentially says we must put out every fire that we find within a timely fashion, unless we find the fire a benefit to the land. (10 a.m. policy, went out of effect in the 1970’s early 80’s) Because of human impact, on natural fire cycles, we almost need the human caused fires to help create a balance between nature and the fire cycles that have been interrupted by humans. To me, it demonstrates the natural model of reciprocity. While, I do agree that most of the information in the article is true and factual, I think that most people forget that fire is, and has been, used as a useful tool for many many years and the science behind it is just now catching up. Humans need to understand that fire is essentially a living force of nature and it must be respected or great damage will be caused.
Thanks for sharing your firsthand experience here, Amber. I am reminded of the ways in which Kalapuya Esther Stutzman speaks of careful control of fires in the Willamette Valley in traditional times. On Puget Sound, indigenous peoples specifically started controlled burns to avoid the build up of fire fuels in certain habitats.
Altogether, the Northwestern habitat pioneers found here grew up in conjunction with human actions: it is an important point that we need to care for fires in more intensive ways to compensate for the ways in which we have modified habitats. Ways in which we are modifying the weather is another issue, since there are now so many more storms today than thirty years ago.
Thanks again for sharing your particular perspective here.
Well, I lived near San Diego and worked in San Diego last year about this time and I was affected in several ways by the fires that burned out of control there for days. I couldn’t get down the 15 freeway to work nor could I take the I-5 because it was closed due to the fire by San Onofre so it was a scary time. Several of my co-workers’ houses burnt to the ground. Even up where my house was, north of the Rainbow/Fallbrook fires the sky was a brownish orange and the air was so thick we were issued an alert not to go outside. I’m just trying to point out that when you’re a victim of a fire you have different feelings toward them rather than if you’re just hearing about it. My work began operating in emergency mode; shutting down server room and implementing the phone tree to make sure everyone was accounted for. My background is in Emergency Management so they called on me for support but I was unable to get down there because there were so many fires between myself and work. I guess my point is that we do need to let fires burn in order to prevent these enormous and devastating fires that cost lives and lots of money. And while they may seem like an inconvenience to some people, take a look at the alternative where I actually though San Diego was just going to shut down. We need to take care of our environment and do everything we can to understand it and preserve it before we don’t have one.
Hi Renee– time to start using all our science along with responsibility for the future of our shared world to make the changes we need, yes?
Obviously, we need to express the value of care for those who share our world, in both the present and the future. In an interdependent world, this benefits all of us.
Thoughtful comment.
I was living in Escondido in North County San Diego when the October Fires of 2003 broke out all over San Diego County and in parts of Los Angeles County. There were a total of 12 fires that burned all over Southern California. I happened to be between to devastating fires: the Cedar fire near Ramona and the Paradise fire in Valley Center, which was 15 minutes north of my home in Escondido, near the San Pasqual Reservation. These fires were such a surreal experience. I worked in Vista which was about 20 minutes northwest of me. I would drive to work along Interstate 15 and 78 and 5 and see the eastern horizon glow in bright reds and oranges. I remember calling my family and friends in Oregon and telling them that you always see things like these fires on the news but it’s a totally different experience when you are witnessing the flames burning out of control in your own county. I lived on a hilltop in Escondido and from the roof of my house I could see the Cedar Fire burning Scripps Ranch and Alpine. The Wild Animal Park near my house had to take on precautionary measures in case the Paradise Fire threatened the park. The strong Santa Ana winds added fuel to the fires, which caused them to rage uncontrollably, spread through residential areas, and even jump major roads and interstates. Many of my friends and their families were evacuated in Valley Center and my aunt and uncle and cousins north of El Cajon. When I heard areas near El Cajon were evacuated I called my aunt and she was in the process of packing clothes and family valuables and seek refuge at the San Diego Charger’s Qualcomm Stadium. The brush-filled hillside was threatening to burn their neighborhood and residents had to get out fast. My aunt later told me that they were given close to 45 minutes to evacuate their home. The San Diego October Fires of 2003 was such a crazy experience. I was working at Home Depot in Vista at the time and hundreds of people were shopping like crazy in the store, buying fire extinguishers and gas masks. I worked near the entrance of the store and we were forced to wear simple face masks so we wouldn’t breathe in the ashes that were blown into the store. People even offered me money for my face mask.
After the fires were finally extinguished and investigations were conducted, I was shocked to hear that the Cedar Fire was ignited by a lost hunter to signaling for help. He first lied to officials saying the fire was started by a gunshot but later confessed it was from a flare gun.
Wildfires are meant to be natural disasters, not to be caused by the carelessness or negligence of humans. Perhaps if the Cedar Fire was caused by a lightning strike or some other natural way, residents would have a different tone as they cleaned up their neighborhoods. But when residents heard the fire was manmade, they were so very angry because they felt the destruction of their homes and community was preventable. We create conditions that allow fires to burn out of control. Our homes are packed together in condensed neighborhoods. We use chemicals and other agents that are either highly flammable or can spark a potential threat to our families as well as our environment. We extinguish natural fires as quickly as possible to avoid the potential threat to our homes and our cities. We fail to properly dispose debris such as fallen leaves and branches. By carefully practicing controlled burning, we could save our cities and rural areas by eliminating the threat of an out of control wildfire breaking out in the future. Controlled burning encourages growth of trees, plant life, and crops. I learned in a horticulture class that the Sequoia seed won’t germinate until exposed to fire.
I think when people think of fire, they either think of a simple, controlled campfire that is used for warmth and enjoyment or they think of wildfires destroying forests and grasslands. We need to come to a middle ground with fire. Fire can be controlled and used to our benefits, even when it does involve wildfires. Native people have successfully practiced controlled burning for generations and allowed natural fires to take its course. Because of the increase of human populations and being crammed in tight living situations, fires are even more dangerous. But if we take the necessary precautions, like practice controlled burning, not releasing products until we know the effects and consequences they will have on ourselves as well as our environment, we won’t be adding fuel to the fire.
This site has a map illustrating the spread of the fires throughout San Diego County. http://map.sdsu.edu/fireweb/animations.htm
Ashley, thanks for your striking eye witness account here– and perspective on the human responsibility involved in such burns.
As a resident of the Los Angeles area and having just experienced two recent fires (Porter Ranch and Sylmar 10/08), I have seen on numerous occasions what damage (both physical and emotional) fires can cause. I work for a volunteer organization that assists owners of livestock in evacuating their animals to safer ground during a fire or any other crisis. Having been surrounded by fire, one cannot help but feel the awesome and overwhelming power a wildfire can produce. However, from the destruction also comes renewal. Fires, by their very nature are reciprocol and bestow many regenerative gifts upon the land.
Having said that, we humans must take action and implement precautionary principles in everything we produce, grow, inhabit and manufature to ensure as best we can, given the knowledge we currently have, to protect all life around us. We have a duty to plan and protect not only ourselves, but the future generations who will inherit all that we have accomplished, along with the negative side effects that come with those creations. Implementing these types of controls will allow the human population to begin to create a safer environment while reducing the negative impacts our “set the world on fire” actions have caused.
Great balance in this comment, Kate. Thanks for this note from someone who has experienced wildfires up close in this way.
I certainly concur with your statement about the precautionary principle!
I think that in such a money-driven market, the long-term effects of these new technologies have become secondary. It seems that there’s always a new drug/technology that’s newly being found to have detrimental effects on people and nature. I feel that nobody is willing to take the time to actually examine and collect the information necessary to fully realize what the long-term effects are going to be. I like the mention of patriotism. It seems that somehow that word/sentiment has become a form of peer pressure. One isn’t being patriotic or is un-american if they question (fill in the blank).
I agree that people can be compassionate, and I think that if people were to really look objectively at some of their actions they would be appalled. I don’t think that many people are inherently bad, but this distance that we’ve created between ourselves and nature makes it easier to mistreat and abuse her. Hopefully we can develop a new (to the western world) definition of progress.
One last comment, as you mentioned the levies that were built to protect the houses placed in a floodplain, why does that happen? It’s as if there’s a need to exert control on natural forces, maybe to show it can be done, i don’t know. It seems to me that houses shouldn’t be built in flood plains. I do recognize that in, for example New Orleans and some areas of Florida, it’s often very poverty stricken communities situated in these areas, and their need for housing may outshine the possibility of it being destroyed, but I see this occur in areas that are not poor or need-driven, as well. It seems to me that “the wall” usually comes down at some point, so why do we keep doing it?
These are all important considerations I think, Erika. We can only hope that it becomes a habit to evaluate the long term effects of our actions. And that we also exercise some sense of environmental justice–so that we don’t locate the poor in the most physical danger from environmental disasters.
Good point about controlling nature: once again, we can only be looking at short-terms effects since, as you say, “the wall usually comes down” in the end.
I know firsthand that fire can be very devastating to people’s properties. After working for two years to build a house for my great-grandmother it went up in flames the day before the insurance was going to be put on it. Someone did not put out their cigarette all the way, it smoldered all night and by the 7am the next morning the house was ruined. However, people need to remember that fire has its upsides and can work for the good of people and environments. As this article discusses, indigenous populations of America would create brush fires or burn clearings so that huge wildfires would not happen and to increase soil fertility and make hunting easier. Today, after stopping Natives from burning fields, we are burning fields for the same reasons that they did; to decrease wildfires and promote fertile soil.
Although fires can be good, it is no excuse for people to be careless with fire. Cigarettes, fireworks and campfires need to be put out completely by the people using them. The results of fires set unintentionally, or intentionally with malicious reasons, often end up being the uncontrollable fires that destroy people’s houses and kill people and animals. People need to be responsible when deciding to use fire and think about the possible dangers that are associated with it and the damages that they can possibly inflict on people, animals and the environment.
Hi Samantha.
I am sorry to hear about you great grandmother’s house.
Yet again, it seems we have the situation that the same thing that brings us many benefits when used with care is disastrous when used carelessly or arrogantly or greedily.
I hope you great grandmother’s house got rebuilt!
I agree with the comments about “natural disasters”. When something that we build does not hold up to nature, while it may turn out to be a disaster it’s a man made disaster. It’s nature going back to what is natural. We seem to think that we can dominate and control everything, and at some point we may realize that we have done more harm in the name of good.
I’m amazed to watch people in my area build a house in a “hundred year” flood plain. Most people think “it won’t happen in my lifetime”… well it just might, and ideally isn’t your house going to last more than 100 years? What about the next family that lives there?
I agree about the Bio-Fuels. Are we sure that the growing of corn for fuel is better? What about the striping of the land, what about the water and chemicals? While it may be considered renewable, is it really cleaner in the long run?
Hi Angie, thanks for the response. Your friends might take note of the fact that climate change is making floods more likely–and more disastrous. Though I haven’t confirmed this with a look at the actual stats, someone on the news in Washington stated that southwestern Washington has had two 500 year floods in the last two years– one of these was the flood that closed I-5 and over forty state and federal roads for several days last month. Even if the newscaster misspoke, I would wager on this being a hundred year flood (the flood the previous year closed I-5 as well).
And as for biofuels, a recent Stanford University study ranking energy sources according to efficiency, sustainability and environmental impact placed two different highly touted forms of biofuels (not just corn) last on the list of desirables (after even nuclear power and gas!)
Not only do biofuels generally cost more in energy to produce than they yield in energy, they contribute substantially to global warming in both their production and their burning–and that’s not even counting their source problems (effects on the land where they are grown and competition with food production).
Algae has been put forth as a biofuel of choice, but the discussion I have seen only rates it as better than corn in terms of source issues, not in terms of energy taken to refine it and global warming gases produced in burning it.
This article is right on the money. I am a Forest Officer, I enforce forest rules, state laws, and Fire Laws. Nearly 100% of all uncontrolled fires are started by people. Most of these fires are due to carelessness, but some are intentional. I had to respond last spring to a fire that was set intentionally to a pile of railroad ties, all beacuse the property owner didn’t want to pay to get rid of this hazardous waste. The fire spread to a nearby feild, and luckily was controlled and put out before anybody was harmed.
This article also mentioned the idea of non-natural “Natural Disasters”. Right on. How can you complain about floods if you live in an area that historically floods? That notion seems ridiculous to me, and to be honest I don’t think that the government should be spending tons of money to rebuild levies that will inevitably break and reflood the same areas again.
I wanted to touch on the response you gave about bio-fuels in your last reply, because there are parts that I disagree with. You talked about how they cost more to produce than they yeild, I read similar studies but I disagre with how they calculated the energy used to produce them. Most of the studies that showed this calculated all the way down to the food that the workers ate, which seems a bit silly to me. We don’t calculate that for petroleum products. Though I do believe that using food for fuel is unwise, both in the form of corn-burners and in the form of ethanol. To me it seems unethical to burn food while so many go without.
Hi Andrew, thanks for your point by point response here. Some great perspective. I appreciate the response on biofuels. The studies I have seen haven’t counted worker food (that would be ridiculous), but they do count the cost of things like the production of fertilizer used to grow corn, the gas used to plow fields, and the amount of energy it takes to distill ethanol as against the btus that come from burning it.
Since there have been food riots all over the world in the last two years, I concur that using food for fuel (and agricultural land to produce it?) is a central issue here. Though I have seen some studies on alternatives such as straw chaf and algae, I haven’t been convinced, since burning these ultimately removes them from somewhere in the food chain (for instance, as agricultural fertilizer) and inevitably puts carbon into the air.
I agree that “fire is not good or bad in itself”; it is a part of the natural cycle which is why some tree species rely on fire to prepare the soil, or to be the catalyst to release seeds. Humans of course interfere by either carelessly starting fires, or putting out fires that should be allowed to burn. The article cites examples of mans carelessness, with results that range from humorous to devastating. When I think of mans ill advised use of fire it reminds me of the Centralia PA mine fire. An abandoned coal mine pit was turned into the towns trash dump, and later someone had the bright idea to set the trash on fire. A vein of coal was ignited and has been burning and spreading underground for decades. The residents of the town eventually had to be relocated and the town basically died. Our actions have consequences, and we need to look ahead to try to learn what chain of events we may be setting in motion.
Thanks for another example here, John. The fact that our actions have consequences in the long as well as the short term is certainly something to keep in mind. This is the main thrust of the precautionary principle. Good point here.
IN the first part of your article you discuss the rush to market of new technologies. I know that one of these technologies is so called nano-technologies. These are devices or inventions that are constructed on the atomic level, atom by atom. I recently read an article where there ar major concerns about the use of this technology and its potential impact on humanity. They are currently performing studies to see if nano-devices were breathed in by a person would lodge in that persons lungs and potentially lead to pulmonary scarring or potentially cancer. This is part of the fallout that comes from all the asbestos lawsuits that are going on today in the US. Everyone I’m sure has seen the lawyers advertising for clients with diagnoses of mesothelioma on TV. Hopefully the researchers involved have learned their lessons through lots and lots of litigation and are applying he precautionary principle to this and other technology.
Hi Joe. I have heard of suits brought against make up producers since such nano-products are being used to cause ingredients in hand cream, for instance, to go directly into the body- and they aren’t labeled. There is also an ongoing battle to label genetically modified foods (as in the same way they are labeled and/or outlawed in the EU), which US corporations have so far been able to block– on the grounds that it would hurt business. They claim it is too expensive to put this info on labels, but they have considerable marketing research that indicates most US consumers won’t buy these products if they know what they are purchasing. I have heard your points here about nano-participles and the parallel to asbestos. I have also heard there are other and serious problems being found in the use of nano-silver participles which lodge in the body.
Here is where we really need the precautionary principle. Thanks for your comments on these points.
I recieved a lot information out of this piece.
The first thing was i was shocked to find out that the 3rd leading cause in deaths in the US was undergoing a procedure. I find that very distrubing. I feel that we live in such a fast past country. So many people are coming out with new things, we want to get them out there are see what they are going to do. Instead of thinking about the consequences that our actions have. We dont perfect things before people buy them or use them. We are more concerned about the mass productions of thing we let the number one componient get away….. quality.
I liked the statement about the fires, that we can label them good nor bad but rather we have to learn how to handle them. I think that goes with a lot of things in life. I think we label things bad because we can not explain or handle them so rather than trying to figure it out we label it as bad. Giving the explanation for its defaults.
Fires are a scary thing… The story about the fourth of July was scary…. There are so many people on the Fourth that are so carless with the fireworks and sparklers. I Thats how fires start , carelessness from humans!!!
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Meagan. Obviously the precautionary principle is a necessity in terms of watching out for the consequences of modern chemicals, for instance, before we release them into the environment.
“And acknowledging our responsibility is the first step in taking care of both ourselves and our environment.”
This quote goes to the core of all of Western cultures ills in society and relating to the environment today. Taking responsibility for our actions is a concept we are taught in kindergarten but many have a problem taking it into later life if it does not benefit them quickly and directly.
We can see the problems with not using the precautionary principle in drug recalls a couple times a year lately. Drugs that are either sped through trials to start making money quickly and are found to be life threatening to individuals later. Or in the case of Zyprexa, an anti-psychotic drug created for schizophrenia, that ended up being given to misbehaving kids as a cure all with minimal side effects. This scam made the drug company $16 billion in the middle of which studies showed many harmful side effects.
This kind of blatant mistreatment of human kind is inexcusable. This is worse than NIMBY, it is even in my back yard that these people are doing these things. The fire is still burning out of control in some areas. Keep doing your thing Dr. Holden, the world needs more of you.
That is very kind of you, Aaron. I want to reply that the world needs more like you. In fact, it needs all who express their commitment to gain the information necessary to do things ethically as well.
It is my hope that as more and more of us do this, we will together change things for the better. The case of Zyprexa and its actual side effects is tragic. There is something entirely wrong with the idea that we only need to swallow (or be forced to swallow) a pill in order to bring ourselves to perfect health or make ourselves into model citizens. As perhaps a tangent but a related one, here is list of some thought provoking resources describing potential fallacies about mental illness, especially as related to particular pharmaceutical “cures”: http://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/mental-health-system/truth. Readers might also want to go to the Integrity in Science website (see link on the right hand column of this blog) and type the name of a chemical into the search engine to see what info is there on who funds its research and public information and/or for women’s health issues in particular visit the National Women’s Health Network site.
I don’t think dealing with human illness should be about making money in the first place.
First of all, I am shocked that undergoing medical procedure is the third leading cause of death in this country. It shows that we put far too much faith in the medical establishment. The same could also be said of the pharmaceutical establishment. There have been numerous tragedies involving drugs that were expedited through the safety process in order to get them on the market quicker, only to be found to be harmful and/or lethal. This is an obvious example of the abandonment of the precautionary principle in favor of the dollar.
I like the line, “if we’re pushing the boundaries of human technology, nothing bad will happen as a result.” This really sums up Western mentalty. Our egos have us believing we can control everything, and if we can’t we will invent a way to do so. The natural world can be tamed. This reminds me of the fires that regularly rage through Laguna Beach, Ca. (near where I grew up). Even though these are usually natural fires, as it is a dense brush area, people still choose to rebuild time and again. The reason for this is obvious, as it is a beautiful place and very desirable, but much of the town is in danger when the fires hit. It is uncontrollable and untameable, yet people continue to try. The precautionary principle in this case would involve the abandonment of prime real estate, something that greed will not allow. Hopefully that will change.
Hi Mike. Hopefully that will change indeed. Maybe we will substitute our greed with a hunger for the quality of life (all life, that is, now and in the future). There is some to concentrate on developing that might lead to real technological wonders. Though they might not be fanciful magic bullets. And they will depend (I predict, anyway) on the sophisticated ability to interact with and empower natural systems of life, rather than attempt to control them or shape them according to our single-minded desires.
Speaking of wildfires, I live in San Diego and it seems that every other year there is a major fire that burns all around the city, and 9 times out of 10, it is started by people. I remember one major fire recently was started by a lost hiker. It is sad to think that someone who just wanted to take a walk and become closer to nature ended up burning hundreds of acres of land instead, but I guess that is what happens when people don’t think things through and don’t use the Precautionary principle.
Now that I think about it, if the precautionary principle was applied more often, such as with the production of our fruits, vegetables and meat, then people today would be much healthier. The precautionary principle wasn’t considered when MSG was approved as a flavor enhancer for our food, or when harsh pesticides are used on our fruits and vegetables. Now, what is supposed to be the healthiest of our foods is slowly poisoning us. That is why, until the precautionary principle is used in finding healthier ways to enhance the food we eat, I am sticking to pure organic and home grown foods.
I think this is a good choice for both the health of the planet and your own health, Jessica. Your note about the fire started by the hiker reminds me about another points about the precautionary principle. Assuming that our actions don’t matter (denying their consequences) is a way of diminishing ourselves in believing that what we do in this world is unimportant.
I think in many ways our behavior simply boils down human to arrogance (combined with a selfish worldview). For example, look at the first atomic bomb, we set it off with out really knowing what would happen, and yet we did it anyway.
Look at the War on Drugs, and then look at the multitude of TV commercials advertising prescription drugs (whose side effects often include death), and then ask your self, what is wrong with this picture?
If there is money, or history to be made, if there is a good time to be had, we as humans are really good at only seeing the immediate results. In many ways we are always on vacation.
I agree that fire is not good or bad in itself… It’s how it is used. That can be said for nearly everything that humans touch (in our modern world). With knowledge comes power, and with power comes responsibility, we just need to learn how to use our power.
Hi Kristian, interesting point about always being on vacation. It does seem that there is mindset that goes with this (resulting in manner of driving, for instance), that translates to, “We are on vacation so nothing bad can happen to us”.
You are absolutely right that assuming responsibility for our actions is the first step in learning how to use our power.
Once again an eye opener. You make such great points, I understand the world much better, if only for a small piece of time.
The point you make about taking responsibility, and calling things what they are is so true. Calling a flood caused by a breaking levie a “natural disaster”, is a cop out, and misleading to the public. Perhaps if the general public were made more aware of the truth behind the cause of such disasters, we would do more to keep it from happening again. And as you say, allow ourselves to learn form the past.
Your mentioning of the controlled burns set by the natives reminds me of a passage from a book I read called State of Fear. In the book the author recalls the history of Yellow Stone Park, and the history of conservation efforts which have had the opposite effects*. He mentions that we cannot remove ourselves form the land, we must maintain it, but we need to do so carefully and thoughtfully. It is the same with the controlled burns, with understanding, fire can become part of a world maintenance plan.
* I wish I had the book to reference, but I have given to a friend; keep the gift moving.
Thanks for your points here, Kate. I certainly agree with your point about naming things properly so that we can address them (not to mention, learn from our mistakes). The case of Yellowstone Park is an interesting one: the re-introduction of wolves there now is helping some ecosystems recover from over grazing by elk that prevented tree growth. State of Fear is a great name: it seems that our worldview brings this on ourselves. If we fail to work in partnership with the natural world, what we attempt to control but can’t leads to such fear. A negative feedback loop, since attempting to control things without knowledge is foolish, and suppressing or ignoring parts of the natural system so that we take them into account (or even see them) is an unfortunate part of this process.
While I read this article, I was thinking about the many forest fires I have been affected by and how it is such a huge controversy. I live in Bend ,Oregon and we are hit every summer by at least one bad wildfire, a few times I have even been evacuated from my house. That is one of the scariest things that has ever happened to me. To have to race through your house and find the “important” things to you. its a horrific event that I hope I will never have to do again.
Controlled burning is a very controversial issue that keeps popping up in this area. A lot of people are for the burning as it does have some positive affects, but now scientists are fighting against the burnings since it is putting harmful gases in the air. I am torn both ways. Had some of the areas near where I live not been controlled burned prior to the fire, who knows how far that fire would have gone. Its a tough call.
Hi Joanna. I wasn’t aware that there was a controversy about controlled forest burning. There is certainly a controversy about field burning, which produces harmful particulate–and to which there are much safer and even profitable alternatives, like selling straw stubble for hay instead of burning it–which many who used to burn fields now do. There is actually a very small minority who burn their fields now, but old habits die hard. It is hard to have controlled burns anywhere (especially when there is much built up fuel) near residential areas. Indeed, there is a serious problem with wood burning for heat in the Willamette Valley and a very serious problem in Oakridge. The trouble is that we can’t get away from the air we breathe; breathers don’t have an alternative to breathing smoke. Thanks for the perspective.
It stuns me to think of how little I knew about what US manufactures put in products, products that they can’t sell in other countries because these countries have higher standard for their citizen. What is more disturbing is my lack of knowledge on this subject and I have two boys who depend on my knowledge so they are safe and healthy. I guess I shouldn’t blindly trust any longer.
Thanks for the comment, Dianna. You might want to check out some of the links here that consist of mothers researching safe household goods. There has been tremendous pressure on regulatory agencies not to do their job during the last white house administration. (See the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists). Let’s hope we will see a change now.
Oh My Gosh!!!!!! This is absolutely crazy. When I read the part about the medical advances not being totally checked out or 100% reliable before they are put into practice. I thought that the US was and had the highest standards on all of that sort of thing. It’s just crazy to think that products in the US are not excepted in some European countries because they are not up to standard. This makes me think just how the US handles all the rest of it’s situations in the world. Especially the war and everything. If this social norm is accepted that most Americans think this country is the highest and set/follows the standards then what in Iraq. They are lying about his and makes me think about government officials worse then I did already. My dad is in the military and has been to Iraq twice as one of the officers in charge in the Air Force. I couldn’t imagine what else the government is lying about and it make me so nervous with my dad being in the institution of the military.
Thanks for your comment, Chelsea. I can understand your worry about your dad– certainly the families of all those in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering here at home. It is a hopeful that Obama is calling an end to the war in Iraq… though there are obviously still soldiers there and others still being deployed.
I think it is important to develop an authentic and critical sense of what is going on in the world arena so that we can both vote and use our purchasing power appropriately.
I agree with your full steam ahead analogy. I worked in the medical field for years, especially the operating room. I was always amazed by the new gadgets they would use on patients that was not really in the patients best interest. Usually it would take longer and was not always as effective.
I also enjoyed your stories about carelessness. It seems like people do not think these days. I live in a neighborhood full of kids riding bikes and skate boarding, but not one has a helmet on. There are safety suggestions posted on all kinds of goods, but are regularly ignored. People do not think that anything will ever happen to them. Maybe that is why society is dragging it’s feet with changing their habits that effect the environment.
Interesting points about carelessness. Ann. I wonder if this is a sign of carelessness on the part of these children or of adults (certainly we are careless about the future of our children when we fail to care for our shared environment).
Thanks for sharing your relevant experience in the medical profession. It does seem like I sometimes spend more extra time on this computer ironing out crashes and other problems than I save with this supposedly time saving device!
The reading brought back many fond memories for me and the things that I really impressed on my children. Growing up, my family spent much time camping in Colorado on vacation. And, my children had the privilege of living in Wyoming for a number of years where we camped across the prairies and mountains.
We were always careful to be sure a campfire was completely extinguished before we left the premises. From this article, I captured that natural or fires from lightning are expected; but, experts need to determine when a more aggressive approach is necessary. Us, who are campfire people, do not need to contribute to the overall cause.
I loved the quote……”Olympia Peninsula elder Nina Baumgartner’s people had ten thousand years to learn how to live in partnership with their land–and to observe the effects of their own actions. We don’t have the luxury of such timing. But the precautionary principle, which states that human innovations need to be proved harmless before enacted, is a good place to start” (Burning Down the House – Holden). This kind of quote teaches me that I will let the experts determine when to start a “controlled burn”, but, this decision may not be the best as experienced by this indigenous culture. I plan to stick to campfires and being responsible.
Thanks,
Paul
Hi Paul, thanks for the comment and sharing your personal experience. We might also take note that there are many places now where fires are not allowed–and especially during summer or dry seasons. You need a camp stove or no fire at all in these situations.
The “experts” opinion has been changing with respect to burning: such flexibility in response to the consequences of our actions is a good thing.
I have to admit, I had no idea of the third leading cause of death was having a medical procedure! Holy cow. I’ve had quite a bit of dealings with medical procedures myself. As a side note, I will offer a couple of bits of information I’ve learned.
*Never leave someone you care about in the hospital. Nurses are awesome, but they are people. Additionally, they’re not babysitters so if your loved one needs something for comfort, you’ll want to be there to see that they get it. Also, you can take a lot of pressure off the nurses by providing small favors like adjusting a pillow or offering ice chips. And keep a close eye on medications given. Oftentimes, asking a nurse what they are giving gives you power and encourages the nurse to re-verbalize what they are giving. My daughter once almost got some other blue pill instead of ativan.
*Also, instead of just writing on one leg or one arm “this one” also write on the other limb…”Not this one!”
Concerning fire, I think its a complex issue. We’re dealing with climate and weather that is as original to the Earth as a fingerprint, so I don’t think we can know for sure the consequences. I joined the National Interagency Fire people for a field trip once. These people are genius’ and are on the job taking in 360 degrees worth of precautionary principle. Their warehouse was enormous with fire tools and food. They report 24/7 and meet with presentations and detailed information (that it takes large teams of people to create) every day and multiple times per day. It was pretty impressive. There is a serious amount of technology being used to understand, fight, encourage and protect people from fire.
It was a profound statement Nina made about taking thousands of years to understand the responsibility concerning fire. One good read on the responsibility concerning fire and timber is Nancy Langston’s Forest Dreams, Forest Nightmares.
One thought I had in the past is that we’re aware (and have been for some time) the affects of subduing fire, but I think we have to be careful to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. It seems to me that prescribed burns are happening with such close intervals in our panic to lower fuel loads, we might be encouraging detrimental consequences.
Those stories about fireworks were pretty interesting. It shows how something so volatile (both physically and metaphorically) has to be handled with great responsibility.
Hi Tina, thanks for the thoughtful comment–and all the important information you share here. I echo your cues for caring for loved ones under medical care. As we lose number of nurses per patients (as hospitals try to cut costs), your recommendations are especially important. I personally know of at least half a dozen instances where medication was the wrong dose–or the wrong medication period–and this might have been tragic or fatal had not a family member or friend questioned this so that the right medication in the right dose could be given. It is also important to healing to have a familiar presence nearby.
I think that you have something very important about of balance here. I mentioned this a bit in my response to your very important question on “diplomacy with the nations of life”.
I think we also need to understand that there are multiple consequences to any action. So we are now going after invasive species with a vengeance everywhere. To the extend that public facilities are using herbicides on water ways. Invasives ARE a problem, but I think we need to stop and think about over-use of herbicides. We shouldn’t be using any of them anywhere near our water systems. Indeed, as more and more data comes in for the dangers of “Roundup”, we should stop using it anywhere.
Part of the problem in gaining perspective is chemical company funding some of the research on invasives (as per the assessment in the links to “Integrity in Science” and the “Union of Concerned Scientists” pages here. )
Power and danger are always linked.
Your “multiple consequences to any action” reminds me, of course, ecology. But, my brain is stretching that comment beyond ecology and science to humanity. It reminds me of a ripple effect with all sorts of people running in to each other.
Your comment that power and danger are always linked reminds me of the holocaust. But, I was always taught that Prayer is the key to Power. I think we’re thinking of two different kinds of power; false power and true power.
Thanks for your comments, Professor. I am enjoying your wisdom.
This essay reminds me of a discussion I had with my girlfriend while driving back from the airport a few weeks ago. We were talking about how incredible flying is and planes are and she asked, “how much crazier would planes be today, if they didn’t have to go through so much testing to advance the technology?” my reply was, “they’d probably be way more advanced, but then flying would be so risky who on earth would want to fly?” I believe both sides in this situation are valid, sometimes one can’t know the damages of their actions for many many years or even centuries, and this should make us all cautious in how we act. However, at the same time, without some level of risk, there can be no reward, no advancement. We do need to look both ways, maybe even twice, before crossing the street, but eventually we have to cross the street or find some other way across lest we stagnate and no matter what, there is a chance we could get hit or get burned.
This post also raises the question of New Orleans, I have some friends who love to debate this topic, one side says the city should be abandoned, the other says the cultural heritage is invaluable and that they should just dig in deeper, build higher, better levies. I’m curious professor what your opinion on the matter might be, seeing as how Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster, but the bursting of the levies and the ultimate destruction of the area was not. I don’t mean to put you on the spot, I am just curious, my opinion is that people can dig in if they want, and I understand why many would see New Orleans as their home and not want to leave, but they also need to understand that another disaster is a matter of when, not if, and so when disaster strikes, they must realize that the damages they suffer are a result of their choice to live there. Live below sea level in a Hurricane corridor at your own risk, no?
Hi Mark, you raise some interesting issues. Thanks for your comment.
It is certainly true that some use (presumed) safety as an excuse for not taking responsibility for their actions– as those who drive large trucks and/or large cars with mucho safety devices in an unsafe way, presuming the size/safety devices of their vehicles will protect them. However, in the case of the unsafe drivers, others on the road take the risks along with them.
Here is the issue with risk: can we fairly subject OTHERS to risk as a result of our actions– or for our gain? It is my sense that those who create risks ought to take responsibility for them–and to suffer their consequences. But the trouble is that economic system in which we pass on costs and hang onto gains (the capitalist mantra for business success)– the risk for new technology gets passed off to others. In terms of releasing new chemicals in the environment, for instance, this passing on risks is a given, since natural systems are interdependent.
So risks for yourself– sure, you have a right to those. But risks for others– no. And especially if, as the precautionary principle states, there is another less toxic (or dangerous) alternative.
As for “advancing” by taking risks, I am not sure your meaning here is not closer to the idea of challenging ourselves– one that is a part of adolescent coming of age rituals in indigenous cultures throughout the world. I certainly agree that we should challenge ourselves– you can think of that as an important way to take personal risks. To give some personal examples, someone’s taking a class out of their arena of expertise or opening emotionally to something that has caused fear in the past– or perhaps standing up for what they believe in in a public arena, which makes them feel vulnerable, etc. I think we could use more of this kind of personal risk taking and courage. As for risking other’s lives (including that of other species) because we want to experiment– I don’t think there is an excuse for that.
And sometimes, such “risks” in terms of innovation are just based on laziness or convenience–on not REALLY challenging ourselves to come up with a better solution. In this sense, the folks at Gaviotas were constantly challenging themselves (you might like to read this, since there are so many examples of innovative engineering here).
This was a very informative essay, as I did not know very much about the reasons for controlled fires. I have often seen controlled fires on farms, or on homes with a lot of land. These are created by people who care about their land, who are educated and choose to live in a place requiring a lot of time, experience and education about the part of the earth on which they live. I think of controlled burning in this context, because this is where I have personally seen it the most. I know that the Forest Service also uses controlled fires and they have a lot of knowledge about how to protect the land and the animals and people who live near it.
However, I am also aware that we humans are responsible for many of the out-of-control fires, especially in California and Oregon, which we are closest to. Many of these fires can be blamed directly on silly mistakes, and on a lack of knowledge about how to care for the land. This carelessness is, as stated in the essay, carried on in many aspects of our culture, and there are huge health and environmental consequences.
We have all seen the country come together when disasters like Hurricane Katrina and huge wildfires have occurred. What if we could come together in preventing these? If the systems were set up to instead protect the earth and the people, and not only to rescue them after something bad has happened, we would not have many pressing problems we face today.
A very important point on prevention rather than fixing disaster, Erin. As Tina Barker has also noted, there can be too many controlled fires. I think grass field burning in the summers is an example, since the burn effects the lungs of so many nearby residents. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
There are a couple of ideas from this essay that jumped out at me. When you link controlled fires to the precautionary principle, you start with the idea that power needs to be used with care. What struck me, though, was when you said, “Those fires were essential, and they set then with care.” I think this shows an important aspect of the precautionary principle, one that is not necessarily in the forefront of my mind when I think of the principle—is something necessary in the first place?
You go on to say that we mislabel human disasters as “natural disasters” when dams or levies break due to human negligence, and call on people to take responsibility for their actions. For (a very narrow) example, if we could hold corporations accountable, and they would take responsibility for the products they produced, we’d make some major progress in implementing the precautionary principle. It just seems like everyone is escaping accountability.
Thanks for your comments, Christine. The point about whether something is necessary in the first place is a good one in this day of over-consumption. I certainly concur with your point about corporate responsibility!
i agree with some others before, it was very interesting to find out that medical procedure is the third leading cause of death. I believe this sounds like a bad thing but at the same time i think that the reason it is so high is because the people that die were so sick or already on thier death bed. I am sure that people that had small problems didnt die from a procedure.
Besides the fact I thought this essay had some really good insight, i dont believe we should ever build or do something. Hence where the precautionary principle comes into play.
Like said in the essay when we go on vacation we seem to do things diffeernetly or live a little more dangerous weather it be good for us or the environement. I believe if everyone would treat the environment as they would treat thier home we would be much better off. Fortunatly we dont seem to have this gun ho attitude when we are home.
Thoughtful point, Christian, but actually people with small problems– or no problems at all (as in elective plastic surgery) have been dying of medical procedures. The frail are of course at more risk. Reasons: medications with side effects (or wrong prescriptions or administration), infections picked up in hospitals, dangers of anesthesia-and general carelessness and neglect, as hospitals become more “cost-efficient” and cut staff. I know of two instances regarding diabetes that might have been fatal (in one of the top hospitals in the country) had there not been intervention on the part of relatives: in one case, a new mother whose chart was clearly marked diabetic was being given a sugar drip; in another an elder who was NOT diabetic was being given insulin. I know of a number of other personal stories that are part of this statistic.
I am a bit confused by your statement about “home”– seems you are saying this should be our model, but that we also need to change the way we treat our homes?
I hope the Precautionary Principle has a lengthy time frame in which they test and research. I like this principle and would love to see it in force in the drug companies as well. I know they have a certain period of time for testing but I don’t think it’s long enough. Data is skewed all the time and I hope there are a few different checks and balances they must go thru first.
Good points, Pam. I agree with you about the issues surrounding testing– that is why I also like the idea of using the “least toxic alternative” that is also part of the precautionary principle. And of course, we must keep testing agencies and science in general honest by disassociating it from monied interests– which is why I think what the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Integrity in Science folks are doing (linked here) is so important. Thanks for your comment.
While reading this article, all I could think about is the plethora of class action lawsuit commercials advertised constantly on TV. Either it is a new drug that came out and was then found to cause serious side effects, or a building product that now causes cancer or causes your house to catch fire. The list goes on and on and each time it reminds me that in technology, the bean counters are still always focused on the bottom line and not what’s best for the consumer or environment. Also, I will never understand why science and technology so often advocates synthetic versions of products when a healthier natural one may be available. For instance, many of us want to get away from using so much sugar in our diets but still need something to sweeten our coffee or tea. Everywhere you go, you can find Sweet-n-low, Splenda or Equal but you can’t find a natural, zero calorie sweetener like Stevia? So many consumers don’t even realize that this product is an option. I think educating the public on natural versions of their synthetic counterparts and giving the consumer the choice could change a lot of what’s wrong with the environment.
On a side note, anyone stupid enough to hand a small child a lit bottle rocket is asking for a Darwin award. The family is lucky no one was hurt and there was no damage. I don’t know the statistics but I imagine that this type of carelessness is probably a major contributor of wildfires such as the ones you reference here. If people just took a few extra seconds to think about what the possible outcomes may be in a situation like this, I’m sure most would have anticipated it. The precautionary principal sure would have come in handy here!
You have some pointed observations here, Allyson. The precautionary principle would indicate that if natural sources of something are readily available and renewable, we ought to stick with them, no matter how much profit we might make in engineering a substitute. I like the “Darwin award”– your response underscores how the kid with the bottle rocket is an analogy for some of the other things we give our kids (or society at large) to play with– it might do us well to become conscious of the fact that this is not exactly an adaptive trend.
Whats sad about the world today, as many people as we educate about these problems it only takes one or two to cause such events. I think allot of the time when we label such events as “Natural Disasotrs” is because if we suddently said It was human error, everyone would look around to point a finger. When in reality its everyones fault. Another problem I think we have is some people not onle are uneducated about fire but are absolutley obssesed with it. I have a friend who considers himself a pyro and constantly tells me not to worry about the massive fire hes building, I dont understand why some people dont get the point until they finally get burned. I wish there was a better way to go through to these people. Having a camp fire is like having our own personnel dam. Its our job to watch the walls, because if the walls fall, that fire will flood the world around us with destruction.
Hi Kevin, thanks for your thoughtful comment. Interesting analogy about the campfire. It would be great if we looked into these things as a matter of prevention rather than blame.
I think your point about learning by getting burned is well taken. Seems like traditional stories once allowed listeners to put themselves into a situation and feel the consequences so they wouldn’t have to be repeated in the real world. I think we could use some such stories today.
For me wildfires conjure up images of middle aged office workers who build giant houses amongst the brush in Southern California. He’s out there with his garden hose feverishly sprinkling the roof in a futile attempt to bar the onslaught of flames rolling up the hill. While at the same time, he is smoking a cigarette and flicking the ashes into the shrubs that surround his piece of invaluable real estate.
This comedic scene of ignorance is something we often see on TV whenever a fire ravages the forests and brush. It shows that with all our creation we are powerless against such a natural force. If a fire wants to burn, it will burn. Whether it was man made in origin or sparked by a natural cause is really irrelevant because policies that don’t allow for natural burns really just increase the potential for an unnatural one.
Also, it is intriguing that we once thought by preventing fires we would be preserving nature. Now, opinions have since changed. It shows that some of the worst things done to our ecosystem where because of the best knowledge of the day.
Thoughtful points, Matt. Hopefully we are flexible enough to change our thinking as new information about the consequences of our actions comes in. The bottle rocket in the hands of the kid on the beach was a bit like the keystone cops scenario. Hilarious if one could laugh in the midst of running for safety.
For almost every post I find myself saying that we MUST take more responsibility for our actions. The carelessness and general lack of common sense is dismaying at best. To me the process is simple – there is an action, there is a consequence, and there are lessons learned. We seem to be good at connecting the first two – I start a fire and it grows out of control. What we fail to do is drawn conclusive lessons from these cause-and-effect relationships that allows us to forego the disasters of the past and forge ahead in the right direction. So when wildfires rage in California every summer, it seems inevitable that we will shortly learn of someone who started a fire (with or without intent) that resulted in large-scale destruction. Why can we not make the same connections that indigenous tribes did years and years ago? Why can we not break away from our pioneer mindset and embrace the forces of nature for what they are? Until we can view situations from this point of view I think it will be difficult to get people to buy into the idea that they should learn from their mistakes. Humans are at the top of the food chain for a reason…. right?
Thanks for this comment, Allison. Interestingly, we are one of the few societies (not in population, but in terms of human history) that has NOT told stories that pass on past learning from our mistakes. Even those pioneer family members I interviewed wanted to speak about what they had done wrong when I collected their oral histories. It seems that learning from our mistakes has been a key part of human evolution– until now. Not an adaptive change, I think.
Proving innovations safe before putting them out on the market or don’t purchase items until they are proven safe only makes sense and of course, will keep health costs down. The responsibility is not in just their hands but also in mine.
I found out that glade plug-ins are dangerous when just alittle amount of liquid seeps out of its packaging so needless to say, i will not be buying those in the future. If it is not made from natural substances, i will not buy it has become one of my rules.
Understanding that our lives are in danger before we walk into a medical facility because of overworked staff, each person needs to take their own precautions on caring for themselves or a loved one.
This article showed me that we are responsible for ourselves and others. When we are at home or away, the precautionary principle should always be understood. If it is not safe, then don’t do it…
Thanks for your comment, Tina. I like your emphasis on both our personal responsibility and the precautionary principle here. Just in their expected use, air fresheners can cause some health problems–as can a number of other fancy cleaners. Check out this link for some low cost natural alternatives: http://www.womenshealthandenvironment.org/
I think the way that I understood the message from this article is that, everything must be in balance. I think we could learn a lot from nature here. Just as nature allows everything to happen a a certain pace, the same should go for us.
We need to learn how to live with nature’s wildfires, but we also need to proceed with caution. The same goes for releasing products out to the environment, we need more checks and balances. Actually, probably more restrictions just to help balance things out. I am always confused if there is anything such as a good chemical. I just know we need a lot more caution, and slow things down in th U.S.
Thanks,
Troy
Thoughtful comment, Jonas. Balance is a very important value in deciding many of our actions. Perhaps you mean a good man-made chemical– since there are plenty of natural chemicals without which we couldn’t survive. But I understand what you mean. The natural world took a long time to achieve its balance– better that we should work with this rather than disrupt it with unknown (but more often than not) disastrous consequences.
Hi Madronna,
Yes, I am sorry, I did mean manmade chemicals, I should have been more clear on that. You are right, we could not live without those benefical natural chemicals.
Thanks,
Troy
Working on a cruise ship I have seen some people do some stupid things. Is just like the what this article said, when people are on vacation they think nothing bad is going to happen to them. I have seen people lean over the rails of the ship to look at the water below not realizing that a big gust of wind could come at any second and throw them off balance. I just want to know what goes through people minds sometimes???
I can imagine you have quite a collection of crazy incidents to remember, Katie.
“No data, no market.” I like this idea, but how much data is “enough data?” In a society so dependent on drugs and cure-all’s, do we really understand or have any concept of possible risks associated with long term use of these chemicals?
With so many new drugs coming out every year, it makes you wonder how much we really know about these products. Lets take birth control for example. It seems that every year there’s a new birth control commercial all over tv. With something as complex as a woman’s reproductive organs, do we really understand or have data on what these drugs will do long term? What if 25 years from now we find out the birth control pill 30% of the U.S.’s young adults are using causes cervical cancer or makes them sterile?
Our society has been conditioned to trust modern science. I feel that we need to take some personal responsibility and precaution before we pump our bodies with chemicals. With a new drug that is conceived and brought to market in 5-8 years, there is no data past 8 years.. it’s a scary thought.
It is even more scary, Jason, when you think about how destructive humans sometimes were when they were new to an environment and did not understand its workings– sometimes took generations to learn enough to get straightened out on this one. Relying on modern science is one thing: relying on scientists often funded–and pressured– by economic interests that severely diverge from the goal of the common good is something else. The Union of Concerned Scientists and Integrity in Science sites linked here have lots to say about this. Personal responsibility is certainly called for, as you indicate.
Thank you, Tina. The learning is a two-way street here. There is a difference between power over and power with. But it seems to me that one needs to be very careful with spiritual power as well– that is, treat it with respect.
Thanks for the follow up, Jonas. Not a big deal. Just my teacherly mind!