There are many kinds of prayers. Some are short like a blessing on the food. Some are formulaic like the words used in an ordinance. Some are formal like a public invocation. Some are deeply personal like the cloistered pleading of a needy soul. None, however, is more significant as a means of approaching our Heavenly Father than a sincere prayer offered over an altar of sacrifice.
Surely, you must be thinking, I can’t be serious. Altars of sacrifice are thousands of years out of date. They may have been important in Old Testament times, but not today. Besides, Christianity is clear about the practice of sacrifice being replaced by baptism and the Sacrament (or the Eucharist).
And so it has been. But let us be clear on at least one point. The practice of animal sacrifice is only a part of the Law of Sacrifice, and this law was never intended to be superseded. With the exception of a few isolated Israelite enclaves (such as the Ethiopian Fallashas) animal sacrifice was indeed abandoned. But the religious truths it stood for were never changed. Joseph Smith’s statement that “a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto salvation.” Sacrifice needs very much to be a part of our contemporary worship - and prayer should be a part of that sacrifice, just like it was anciently.
I am not suggesting that we find a place in our backyards and start placing stones together into a pile. This would obviously be inappropriate and unnecessary. There are enough symbolic altars around for us to use. Some of these altars exist in temples, churches, and other meeting houses around the world. They can even exist in our homes. All that is needed is a willingness to give all that we have to God. Of course this is not a trivial thing, and a somnolent muttering of syllables is hardly the spirit intended. Because at the heart of the Law of Sacrifice – at the heart of giving all we have to God – is the giving up of our sins. A prayer before an altar of sacrifice is a plea for forgiveness. It has been this way from the beginning.
Anciently prayer was intimately associated with sacrifice. In fact the first references to prayer in the Bible involve altars. In Genesis 12:8 we read that when Abram (Abraham) came to a mountain near Bethel and pitched his tent that “he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord.” An earlier reference to prayer (in Genesis 4:26) appears to stand alone (without an altar) until we read the same, yet expanded, narrative in the Book of Moses (Chapter 5:5-8) where Adam is commanded to offer the firstlings of his flocks for an offering unto the Lord. After many days an angel appears to Adam and commands him that he must also “repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.” In fact an earlier verse in Chapter 4 (verses 3-4, also in the Book of Moses) also shows the relationship of prayer to altars.
Later Solomon is recorded to have offered prayer before an altar with outstretched hands “And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the Lord, he arose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven” (I kings 8:54).
In the Book of Mormon account of the missionary efforts of the sons of Mosiah, it is recorded that many were brought to a “knowledge of the truth; yea, by the power of their words many were brought before the altar of God, to call on his name and confess their sins before him.” (Alma 17:4). And other examples exist throughout the standard works.
One of the important clues in these verses to the significance of these prayers is the use of the verb “to call”. These are not just prayers that are spoken. These are prayers that call upon God. Two-way communication is expected. A prayer before a sacrificial altar is intended to be a revelatory experience.
Hugh Nibley has pointed out that this sacrificial prayer was tied very early not just to revelation but also to divine instruction and the performing of ordinances. He translates a passage from Clement showing that “Adam finding he needed help, solicited divine assistance with prayers and sacrifice… That was the beginning of the ordinances of God.”
Some of this is evident in the remarkable story of Peter’s testimony in Matthew (Chapter 16). You may recall the remarkable passage where Peter testifies that Jesus is the Christ. This is followed by the famous reference that is interpreted so differently by Catholics, Protestants and Mormons: “thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my church.” The Catholic tradition understands that Peter (Petros, meaning rock or stone) is the rock upon which the church will be founded. To other Christian faiths - including Mormons - the 2nd rock is in reference to revelation. And the words of Christ to Peter represent a double-entendre: Peter and the rock (petros) of revelation.
I do not disagree with this interpretation but I think it is missing something important - something centered on prayer, altars and sacrifice. Consider the setting: it is in the mountainous area near Caesarea Philippi. And consider the double entendre: Peter and the rock. One does not need much of an imagination to see a reference to temple worship here. Mountains are often used either as symbols of temples or as physical places where temples are located. Stones, of course, are what altars were made of.
I find it hard to believe that these elements are combined in this passage by accident, especially considering how things end. This stone upon which Christ’s church is to be built will prevail against the “gates of hell.” As Hugh Nibley pointed out several years ago, the “it” in the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it” is (in Greek) a partitive genitive. For Nibley this means that the gates of hell shall not prevail against those who are already there. The traditional interpretation, on the other hand, is a more difficult translation: the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.
I believe that a more penetrating understanding of this reference (and one involving a more trenchant double meaning) is that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the altar of the temple. This interpretation (as well as Nibley’s) makes Peter’s revelatory experience a temple experience. It is intimately tied to the Law of Sacrifice.
Further evidence for this altar can be found in the following chapter (Mathew 17). It is here that Christ is again on the mountain with Peter, James and John. After Christ has been transfigured, and when Peter realizes the heavenly messengers that have been there, the leading apostle suggests that three tabernacles be built: one for Christ, one for Moses and one for Elias. Now the word “tabernacle” (the Greek skene) is easily overlooked. In the Old Testament it is often used for any kind of tent or dwelling. In the Matthew account it is different, especially given the sanctity of the setting and the messengers involved. Perhaps the clearest indication of what is intended is to refer to the Book of Hebrews (in the 8th and 9th chapters). Here the word “tabernacle” clearly refers to sacrifice and ordinances. Verse 2 (Chapter 8) reference is made to a “minister of a sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices…” in verse 3 (Chapter 9) we learn that the tabernacle “which is called the Holiest of all” is after the second veil in the temple where the golden censer and the Ark of the Covenant were kept.
Of course there is no proof of a physical altar of stones here but I think the evidence suggests that there was one. I do think, however, that at least one thing is quite clear in all of this: the Law of Sacrifice was intended to be a central part of an enduring Christianity, not a forgotten relict of its Jewish past.
Now this is a very different interpretation of what altars and sacrifice mean than the one accepted by the scholarly community. This view of animal sacrifice is that it evolved in prehistoric times among human hunting bands as a way of appeasing the arbitrary anger of the gods. Blood dripped on altar stones becomes a symbol of mankind’s reaction to his own inherent violence, not a symbol of repentance and redemption. To James Carroll (noted author of Constantine’s Sword) sacrifice is an evolutionary epiphenomenon that allowed primitive humans to deal with death. It “is the invention that aims to make sense of, and to restrict, violence.”
Such a view is naïve and far too simplistic. Carroll should know better. Claiming the deepest rituals of religion to be mere atavisms performed by primitive simpletons is a mockery at best. Placing animal flesh on an altar was, to earlier times, an act of giving one’s most valued possessions to God.
Nor was this sense lost in the early Christian church. Of course baptism and the sacrament came to replace animal sacrifice but this was not the end of making an offering of self to God - certainly an essential aspect of sacrifice. Stone altars were placed at the center of churches where, instead of partaking of animal flesh, worshippers partook of a token piece of bread instead. All the key elements of ancient expiatory sacrifice are still in place: a humble kneeling approach to God, a calling on His name, an offering of all one has (including the forsaking of one’s sins), a sacred meal that recognizes the supreme sacrifice of the Lamb of God.
All of this was never meant to be lost. But our ignorance of what it signifies has been a loss of tragic proportions to those truly seeking transformative truths. Certainly God, our Father, hears our simple prayers. But ultimately there is only one way back to His presence, and it is through the sacrifice of His Son. And it is worth remembering that there is a different kind of prayer that is meant to remember and acknowledge this all-important fact. It is a prayer of sacrifice.
References
Joseph Smith’s statement on sacrifice is in Lectures on Faith (6th lecture). It is not certain which sections of this formerly canonized work were written by the prophet himself, but all of the lectures were approved by him. For Nibley’s account of early Christian sacrificial prayers see The Early Christian Prayer Circle; in, Mormonism and Early Christianity (Volume 4 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley). Nibley’s insights on the “the Gates of Hell” are in Baptism for the dead in Ancient Times (also in his Collected Works, Volume 4). Two sources dealing with the modern interpretation of animal sacrifice (which are misguided in my mind) are Walter Burkert’s Homo Necans, the Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth, and James Carroll’s recent Jerusalem, Jerusalem.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Building
I feel alone at times
Without the ego scaffolding
That used to keep me
Working on the walls
It’s left me quite exposed
Now that it’s gone
But there is much to do inside
And I’ve no further need to hide
Without the ego scaffolding
That used to keep me
Working on the walls
It’s left me quite exposed
Now that it’s gone
But there is much to do inside
And I’ve no further need to hide
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Another Darwinian Fairytale
Here's a new Just So story that Kipling would be proud of: Many years ago in the distant land of Africa a small troop of human-like primates emerged from the forest and noticed a herd of antelope nearby. "What a delicious dinner," grunted one of the apes. "Let's go get one." Whereupon the hirsute hominid picked up a stick and began running towards the herd.
Fortunately for the primate, the creatures weren't hard to catch. After all, this was a long time ago when animals weren't nearly as fast. And these antelope had never seen a two-legged monkey before and didn't think they were dangerous. At first the antelope just looked at the man with curiosity. Then when they could see that this novel being was coming right for them, they decided to run away. Sadly for them they didn't run fast enough and the man caught up with the oldest (and slowest) animal and beat it with a stick. That night the primates had meat for dinner.
Many years passed and the man-like beings kept chasing after the antelope. After a few generations they started raising children that were faster than normal. This was a promising development. They would be able to catch more antelope. But the antelope started getting faster too and so they had to be content with an escalating status quo.
As generations turned into millennia and millennia turned into a vague infinitude, the apes became humans and the man/antelope relationship became something truly unexpected. It involved vast amounts of time and evolutionary pressure. But the antelope came to run as fast as 50-60 miles an hour over short distances and the men, while not being able to run nearly as fast, could keep running for hours and could eventually run an antelope to the ground out of sheer persistence.
This, of course, is not a true story. Even so, amazing as it might seem, there are many people - including scientists, athletes, and the generally gullible public - that think it is. The whole scenario (with a lot more detail) has come to have a sophisticated name. It's called "persistence hunting". It is the newest evolutionary explanation of why humans are capable of running so fast and for so long.
The latest issue of Outside magazine (May 2011) has a story of a few marathon runners chasing American antelope just to see if it might be possible. Sadly, they failed, but not without coming close enough to make the whole thing seem plausible. Plausible, that is, to people who don't know any better. For in fact, the possibility of this sort of thing really happening is less likely than any of Kipling's famous stories.
For starters, antelope were not slow creatures all those many years ago. Lions, cheetahs, hyenas and their earlier ilk were happily pawing the African plain and were eager to chase any antelope too slow to get away. Even if our physical ancestors did emerge from the African forests, they would never have been fast enough to catch an antelope or have a chance of running one down. Besides, marathon runners are not the human norm. Even after millennia of this so-called evolutionary leg race, an average human being (not to mention somebody in good shape) would have no chance.
But you might argue that marathon runners prove otherwise. This is hardly true. Marathon runners are impressive, no doubt, but they are an example of highly trained individuals, not the average direction of our species. They have merely taken our existing human capabilities and pushed them to a limit. In a natural population this doesn’t happen because being well adapted to a certain place involves an entire suite of characteristics. You can’t over-emphasize one without affecting the others.
An antelope is not just adapted to run fast. It is also well adapted to eat the local plants, to blend into the landscape, to fight disease. If you emphasize just one trait, you sacrifice some of the others. This is one of the clearest lessons we have learned through hundreds of years of breeding plants and animals. This is why our domestic breeds almost never survive (or remain true breeds) when left on their own in the wild.
And besides antelope are not domestic breeds. Neither are the animals that hunt them. Surely we could capture lions and breed them for speed if we really wanted to. Such animals would be faster than the ones chasing wildebeest in the wild. But the truth remains that the changes caused by domestic breeders don't happen in nature - no matter how many of our evolutionary apologists try to convince us otherwise. Our many creative breeding programs (spanning millennia) have never been able to make an organism better able to survive in the natural world.
I don't mean to suggest that natural selection doesn't happen - of course it does. Over time, if there were enough environmental pressures acting upon us, we might become faster runners. But this hardly gets us past the huge gap between an arboreal monkey and the antelope-chasing human. Adaptable we may be. Inevitable products of primate evolution is another thing altogether.
Another point I would like to make is that these Just So stories are human-directed stories, just like all domestic breeding projects are human-directed stories of one kind or another. If there is any evolutionary significance in any of them it is that humans can manipulate nature - that we are capable of altering the Creation. Even a highly trained marathon runner is using his or her God-given agency to literally run against nature - of over-developing one capacity at the expense of others. No other species will do this. It’s easy enough to extrapolate from breeding projects to major evolutionary change but our only real point of departure in this sea of speculation is our given genetic endowment – with its remarkable (and limited) adaptability.
What the real prehistory of mortal man involves is a mystery to us all. And so I suppose that I should be more patient with these evolutionary stories. But when the narrative motivation becomes misanthropy and the meaning of human life becomes a mere reproductive calculation, I object. There are, I believe, reasons for our reason, and obvious clues to our conscience - Darwinian fancies notwithstanding.
Fortunately for the primate, the creatures weren't hard to catch. After all, this was a long time ago when animals weren't nearly as fast. And these antelope had never seen a two-legged monkey before and didn't think they were dangerous. At first the antelope just looked at the man with curiosity. Then when they could see that this novel being was coming right for them, they decided to run away. Sadly for them they didn't run fast enough and the man caught up with the oldest (and slowest) animal and beat it with a stick. That night the primates had meat for dinner.
Many years passed and the man-like beings kept chasing after the antelope. After a few generations they started raising children that were faster than normal. This was a promising development. They would be able to catch more antelope. But the antelope started getting faster too and so they had to be content with an escalating status quo.
As generations turned into millennia and millennia turned into a vague infinitude, the apes became humans and the man/antelope relationship became something truly unexpected. It involved vast amounts of time and evolutionary pressure. But the antelope came to run as fast as 50-60 miles an hour over short distances and the men, while not being able to run nearly as fast, could keep running for hours and could eventually run an antelope to the ground out of sheer persistence.
This, of course, is not a true story. Even so, amazing as it might seem, there are many people - including scientists, athletes, and the generally gullible public - that think it is. The whole scenario (with a lot more detail) has come to have a sophisticated name. It's called "persistence hunting". It is the newest evolutionary explanation of why humans are capable of running so fast and for so long.
The latest issue of Outside magazine (May 2011) has a story of a few marathon runners chasing American antelope just to see if it might be possible. Sadly, they failed, but not without coming close enough to make the whole thing seem plausible. Plausible, that is, to people who don't know any better. For in fact, the possibility of this sort of thing really happening is less likely than any of Kipling's famous stories.
For starters, antelope were not slow creatures all those many years ago. Lions, cheetahs, hyenas and their earlier ilk were happily pawing the African plain and were eager to chase any antelope too slow to get away. Even if our physical ancestors did emerge from the African forests, they would never have been fast enough to catch an antelope or have a chance of running one down. Besides, marathon runners are not the human norm. Even after millennia of this so-called evolutionary leg race, an average human being (not to mention somebody in good shape) would have no chance.
But you might argue that marathon runners prove otherwise. This is hardly true. Marathon runners are impressive, no doubt, but they are an example of highly trained individuals, not the average direction of our species. They have merely taken our existing human capabilities and pushed them to a limit. In a natural population this doesn’t happen because being well adapted to a certain place involves an entire suite of characteristics. You can’t over-emphasize one without affecting the others.
An antelope is not just adapted to run fast. It is also well adapted to eat the local plants, to blend into the landscape, to fight disease. If you emphasize just one trait, you sacrifice some of the others. This is one of the clearest lessons we have learned through hundreds of years of breeding plants and animals. This is why our domestic breeds almost never survive (or remain true breeds) when left on their own in the wild.
And besides antelope are not domestic breeds. Neither are the animals that hunt them. Surely we could capture lions and breed them for speed if we really wanted to. Such animals would be faster than the ones chasing wildebeest in the wild. But the truth remains that the changes caused by domestic breeders don't happen in nature - no matter how many of our evolutionary apologists try to convince us otherwise. Our many creative breeding programs (spanning millennia) have never been able to make an organism better able to survive in the natural world.
I don't mean to suggest that natural selection doesn't happen - of course it does. Over time, if there were enough environmental pressures acting upon us, we might become faster runners. But this hardly gets us past the huge gap between an arboreal monkey and the antelope-chasing human. Adaptable we may be. Inevitable products of primate evolution is another thing altogether.
Another point I would like to make is that these Just So stories are human-directed stories, just like all domestic breeding projects are human-directed stories of one kind or another. If there is any evolutionary significance in any of them it is that humans can manipulate nature - that we are capable of altering the Creation. Even a highly trained marathon runner is using his or her God-given agency to literally run against nature - of over-developing one capacity at the expense of others. No other species will do this. It’s easy enough to extrapolate from breeding projects to major evolutionary change but our only real point of departure in this sea of speculation is our given genetic endowment – with its remarkable (and limited) adaptability.
What the real prehistory of mortal man involves is a mystery to us all. And so I suppose that I should be more patient with these evolutionary stories. But when the narrative motivation becomes misanthropy and the meaning of human life becomes a mere reproductive calculation, I object. There are, I believe, reasons for our reason, and obvious clues to our conscience - Darwinian fancies notwithstanding.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Juvenile Delinquency and the Miracle of Marriage
Last summer my nephew – I’ll call him Jay – came to live with us. He was in a great deal of trouble in another state and was being held by authorities because of his delinquent behavior. You see, Jay had missed the previous school year – all of it – because he decided he didn’t want to go to class. And then things went from bad to worse when he started taking illegal drugs.
Jay’s father died from a brain tumor over six years ago. When his mother took a job requiring her to leave home early each morning, Jay took advantage of the situation and stopped going to school. He always had a good excuse and his mother found it difficult to constantly argue with him.
So when school started last fall, Jay had to catch up on a full year of classes in a place he was unfamiliar with. Fortunately Fresno has a school targeting troubled students like Jay and we were able to get a curriculum together that met his needs. For us, however, we were understandably concerned about the influence Jay would have in our home. He was (is) sleeping in the same room as our son and next door to our daughter. When, just a couple of weeks after moving in, he was suspended from school for being caught with drugs, our concerns increased.
I sat down with Jay and told him that I wanted to be supportive and that I was willing to help him if I could. But I also let him know that I would not tolerate drugs in our home. If he made mistakes, I would work with him, but I would send him back to his former version of juvenile jail if he was ever caught with drugs again. I let him know that I could not be a responsible father and allow such things in my home.
Jay continued to struggle after this. But he did manage to stay drug free. One day we received a call from one of his teachers. He told us that Jay was in trouble. Kathy hurried over to school, quietly walked into his class and sat in the back. She didn’t have to say anything but Jay learned that we were serious about his behavior at school.
Then there were times when he would just disappear and go visit one of his friends from school. This didn’t seem like a big deal to Jay. We weren’t his real parents, after all, and what’s the harm of having friends? When I explained to him that I had no way of trusting anybody from a school filled with delinquent youth, he began to see my point.
Part of the trouble was that our home is quite boring for youth. We have strict (limited) rules about television and computer use. We also lack most popular electronic games. We rely on good books, outdoor activities and the occasional DVD for entertainment. It took some time for Jay to adapt to this.
In fact we all had to adapt to our new situation. This was particularly difficult at times when Jay tried to cover up his misbehavior. For me, a big challenge was taking an hour after school to help him with his homework. This was time I normally dedicated to my own studies. Kathy had more errands to run, more laundry to do and a much bigger culinary responsibility. Jay is, after all, a big boy.
That said, there were also a number of things that came together that helped Jay give up his bad habits. In fact, Jay has not only changed a few habits, he has changed from a sad and rebellious boy into a caring and trustworthy young man. And it is this change that prompts me to write this essay and become a little philosophical about his situation.
A simple example might illustrate this change. Several months ago, Jay would occasionally do something wrong around the house. He would then try to cover it up. He didn’t think we knew he was guilty. After troubling myself about how to deal with this dishonesty, I finally taught him of the importance of admitting mistakes in a non-threatening context. I told him that I would not be hard on him if he admitted his mistakes before being caught.
Several months passed and then one day on the way to the gym, Jay told me that he had either misplaced a school book or someone had stolen it. Either way he would need to pay for it. I was extremely proud of Jay for this confession and I could tell that he was changing. A couple of days later he was quite pleased to tell me that the book had been found.
As of today, more than seven months since he first arrived, Jay has no more desire to be rebellious. He has overcome his craving for drugs. He participates actively and with pleasure at church (where he refused to be involved before). He even getting out of bed an hour early in order to attend an early morning scripture study class for youth (we call it Seminary). His new friends are upstanding individuals that we are comfortable with. What is really impressing his mother is that he is doing well in all his classes (getting A’s and B’s). He has even been recognized as a star student by his teachers.
One thing that helped Jay get his mind off of his problems was his developing interest in insects. I am an entomologist and keep a collection of my own at home, and Jay and I were able to take several weekends off to go collecting. We still do. For Christmas, Jay got a kit to start his own collection. He now knows all the major orders, many families and even the full scientific names of several local species. He has even been invited to talk to elementary schools on the subject and is being recognized as a bit of an authority by some of his peers. He takes pride in this.
Another very positive effect has been Jay’s Seminary teacher. She is a woman that has refused to judge him negatively. Instead she has been very supportive. Her most noticeable characteristic is an unconditional love for others (along with a talent for making great cookies!). She has had a tremendous influence in helping Jay change his view of organized religion. Where he used to see religious youth as brainwashed hypocrites, he now sees them as friends struggling with their own problems and needing each other’s support.
Jay’s transformation has been truly remarkable and yet I am not sure I can put my finger on what has been the most important part in this change. I have become keenly aware of the studies surrounding fatherless boys and of the great impact that a father figure (even a poor one) has on these youth. I am certainly convinced that this is a social issue requiring our determined attention.
Yet I can’t pinpoint any single thing that anybody has done that is clearly the most important element in this change. I fail to see the direct relationship between my own existence in Jay’s life as a father figure (considered in isolation) and his remarkable change. To be honest, my direct involvement has not been that extensive. It consists of being present at dinner, for our family devotional, and for an occasional family discussion. Occasionally I will sit down with Jay one on one. But Jay no longer needs my help with homework and our routine family life has been resumed, with the exception that he is willing to help with our family chores.
To what then do I owe this great change? My answer – given after much thought - is that it is the home environment surrounding a committed marriage. This is an environment that I often take for granted. It is also an environment that can often be invisible because of the frustrations of making a living, keeping up with family responsibilities, and just living life.
But there is an order that inheres to a traditional marriage whether we see it or not. Certainly the absence of the father can cause far-reaching harm. But it requires the combination of a father and a mother to create an environment of healthy growth and development. For in fact, the true wonderment of Jay’s transformation is that no one has changed Jay. He has rather found a place where his true nature can manifest itself. He is, at heart, a caring and responsible young man. He just needed a place (just like all of us do) where he could learn to be himself.
What I have learned is a simple but profound truth about human nature. We don’t need to force good behavior onto our children or the youth of our communities. They will each grow in to the beautiful individual that is inherently a part of their natures if the environment is right for that growth. They will grow toward the light that resonates with their own light. We just need to make sure the light is visible. More than we might realize, this happens in a traditional home. In fact it is difficult for it to happen anywhere else. It happens through the miracle of marriage.
Jay’s father died from a brain tumor over six years ago. When his mother took a job requiring her to leave home early each morning, Jay took advantage of the situation and stopped going to school. He always had a good excuse and his mother found it difficult to constantly argue with him.
So when school started last fall, Jay had to catch up on a full year of classes in a place he was unfamiliar with. Fortunately Fresno has a school targeting troubled students like Jay and we were able to get a curriculum together that met his needs. For us, however, we were understandably concerned about the influence Jay would have in our home. He was (is) sleeping in the same room as our son and next door to our daughter. When, just a couple of weeks after moving in, he was suspended from school for being caught with drugs, our concerns increased.
I sat down with Jay and told him that I wanted to be supportive and that I was willing to help him if I could. But I also let him know that I would not tolerate drugs in our home. If he made mistakes, I would work with him, but I would send him back to his former version of juvenile jail if he was ever caught with drugs again. I let him know that I could not be a responsible father and allow such things in my home.
Jay continued to struggle after this. But he did manage to stay drug free. One day we received a call from one of his teachers. He told us that Jay was in trouble. Kathy hurried over to school, quietly walked into his class and sat in the back. She didn’t have to say anything but Jay learned that we were serious about his behavior at school.
Then there were times when he would just disappear and go visit one of his friends from school. This didn’t seem like a big deal to Jay. We weren’t his real parents, after all, and what’s the harm of having friends? When I explained to him that I had no way of trusting anybody from a school filled with delinquent youth, he began to see my point.
Part of the trouble was that our home is quite boring for youth. We have strict (limited) rules about television and computer use. We also lack most popular electronic games. We rely on good books, outdoor activities and the occasional DVD for entertainment. It took some time for Jay to adapt to this.
In fact we all had to adapt to our new situation. This was particularly difficult at times when Jay tried to cover up his misbehavior. For me, a big challenge was taking an hour after school to help him with his homework. This was time I normally dedicated to my own studies. Kathy had more errands to run, more laundry to do and a much bigger culinary responsibility. Jay is, after all, a big boy.
That said, there were also a number of things that came together that helped Jay give up his bad habits. In fact, Jay has not only changed a few habits, he has changed from a sad and rebellious boy into a caring and trustworthy young man. And it is this change that prompts me to write this essay and become a little philosophical about his situation.
A simple example might illustrate this change. Several months ago, Jay would occasionally do something wrong around the house. He would then try to cover it up. He didn’t think we knew he was guilty. After troubling myself about how to deal with this dishonesty, I finally taught him of the importance of admitting mistakes in a non-threatening context. I told him that I would not be hard on him if he admitted his mistakes before being caught.
Several months passed and then one day on the way to the gym, Jay told me that he had either misplaced a school book or someone had stolen it. Either way he would need to pay for it. I was extremely proud of Jay for this confession and I could tell that he was changing. A couple of days later he was quite pleased to tell me that the book had been found.
As of today, more than seven months since he first arrived, Jay has no more desire to be rebellious. He has overcome his craving for drugs. He participates actively and with pleasure at church (where he refused to be involved before). He even getting out of bed an hour early in order to attend an early morning scripture study class for youth (we call it Seminary). His new friends are upstanding individuals that we are comfortable with. What is really impressing his mother is that he is doing well in all his classes (getting A’s and B’s). He has even been recognized as a star student by his teachers.
One thing that helped Jay get his mind off of his problems was his developing interest in insects. I am an entomologist and keep a collection of my own at home, and Jay and I were able to take several weekends off to go collecting. We still do. For Christmas, Jay got a kit to start his own collection. He now knows all the major orders, many families and even the full scientific names of several local species. He has even been invited to talk to elementary schools on the subject and is being recognized as a bit of an authority by some of his peers. He takes pride in this.
Another very positive effect has been Jay’s Seminary teacher. She is a woman that has refused to judge him negatively. Instead she has been very supportive. Her most noticeable characteristic is an unconditional love for others (along with a talent for making great cookies!). She has had a tremendous influence in helping Jay change his view of organized religion. Where he used to see religious youth as brainwashed hypocrites, he now sees them as friends struggling with their own problems and needing each other’s support.
Jay’s transformation has been truly remarkable and yet I am not sure I can put my finger on what has been the most important part in this change. I have become keenly aware of the studies surrounding fatherless boys and of the great impact that a father figure (even a poor one) has on these youth. I am certainly convinced that this is a social issue requiring our determined attention.
Yet I can’t pinpoint any single thing that anybody has done that is clearly the most important element in this change. I fail to see the direct relationship between my own existence in Jay’s life as a father figure (considered in isolation) and his remarkable change. To be honest, my direct involvement has not been that extensive. It consists of being present at dinner, for our family devotional, and for an occasional family discussion. Occasionally I will sit down with Jay one on one. But Jay no longer needs my help with homework and our routine family life has been resumed, with the exception that he is willing to help with our family chores.
To what then do I owe this great change? My answer – given after much thought - is that it is the home environment surrounding a committed marriage. This is an environment that I often take for granted. It is also an environment that can often be invisible because of the frustrations of making a living, keeping up with family responsibilities, and just living life.
But there is an order that inheres to a traditional marriage whether we see it or not. Certainly the absence of the father can cause far-reaching harm. But it requires the combination of a father and a mother to create an environment of healthy growth and development. For in fact, the true wonderment of Jay’s transformation is that no one has changed Jay. He has rather found a place where his true nature can manifest itself. He is, at heart, a caring and responsible young man. He just needed a place (just like all of us do) where he could learn to be himself.
What I have learned is a simple but profound truth about human nature. We don’t need to force good behavior onto our children or the youth of our communities. They will each grow in to the beautiful individual that is inherently a part of their natures if the environment is right for that growth. They will grow toward the light that resonates with their own light. We just need to make sure the light is visible. More than we might realize, this happens in a traditional home. In fact it is difficult for it to happen anywhere else. It happens through the miracle of marriage.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Winter Peas in Fresno
Last year on October 24th I planted a handful of peas in my small backyard garden plot in Fresno. I also planted a few cabbage and spinach seeds. I wanted to see if these vegetables, that are known to be frost-tolerant to a degree, would make it through a Fresno winter and provide me with an off-season crop to rotate with my summer tomatoes. You can see for yourself how well they managed.
This picture was taken about a week ago and we are now enjoying fresh peas. The first few I harvested a couple of weeks ago were a bit weather-worn. The more abundant crop this week is soft and very tasty - a real treat. What is remarkable is that I have done next to nothing to care for these plants. The cool winter weather of the Central Valley seems to be just what these peas need to grow. The 12 inches of precipitation this winter has been plenty. I only watered the seeds right after planting and then have let the rains take of the rest.
I did help out with nutrition; not artificial fertilizers mind you, but a healthy layer of homemade compost covered with flat stones around the young seedlings. I added the compost to improve the soil and the stones to keep back the weeds and to foster a nicer environment for the earthworms and helpful arthropods. A couple of months ago (in January) I turned over one of the stones and was happy to see a couple of fat worms and a few baby earwigs - along with several isopods (a.k.a. potato bugs). Another benefit of the peas is that (being legumes) they are busy making nitrogen available for my next crop.
I did notice early-on a couple of nibbled leaves near the ground where some unwanted creature was eating my plants. After my initial concern, I decided to leave them alone. With the few predatory ground beetles that I had seen running around the stones I hoped that whatever guilty creature was feeding on the plants would not get out of hand. So far I have been right.
You can also see the cabbages I planted at the same time as the peas. They are doing fine but have not grown as much. This surprised me a little. I was actually expecting them to do better with the cold than the peas but I was wrong. I'm going to have to wait several more weeks before they're ready to eat.
The spinach really hasn't been a good test. I planted the seeds in the lowest part of the garden and they got flooded on several occasions when it rained hard. I may experiment with them next winter.
For the small garden that I have, being able to multiply crops is one way to maximize the use of limited resources. But there are also real benefits from small gardens. I have an abundance of compost and my yields are much higher than commercial growers. My plants are also completely in their element. Since taking the picture, they have added several more inches to each tip and have become top-heavy, falling over into the adjacent rows - the pea equivalent to inebriation, I'm sure. Worm castings are piling up around the stones and spring is well under-way.
This is a bit unusual for most gardeners, I know. The common wisdom is to plant peas sometime in March, recognizing that they can take a little frost. I've heard that even on very cold nights, they can survive if covered in snow - or under a light compost no doubt. Planting in March might be a good idea for northerners. But for the citizens of Fresno planting so late would be a shame. Why plant in March when you can be eating peas in March. My advice to anybody with mild winters is to plant peas in October.
This picture was taken about a week ago and we are now enjoying fresh peas. The first few I harvested a couple of weeks ago were a bit weather-worn. The more abundant crop this week is soft and very tasty - a real treat. What is remarkable is that I have done next to nothing to care for these plants. The cool winter weather of the Central Valley seems to be just what these peas need to grow. The 12 inches of precipitation this winter has been plenty. I only watered the seeds right after planting and then have let the rains take of the rest.
I did help out with nutrition; not artificial fertilizers mind you, but a healthy layer of homemade compost covered with flat stones around the young seedlings. I added the compost to improve the soil and the stones to keep back the weeds and to foster a nicer environment for the earthworms and helpful arthropods. A couple of months ago (in January) I turned over one of the stones and was happy to see a couple of fat worms and a few baby earwigs - along with several isopods (a.k.a. potato bugs). Another benefit of the peas is that (being legumes) they are busy making nitrogen available for my next crop.
I did notice early-on a couple of nibbled leaves near the ground where some unwanted creature was eating my plants. After my initial concern, I decided to leave them alone. With the few predatory ground beetles that I had seen running around the stones I hoped that whatever guilty creature was feeding on the plants would not get out of hand. So far I have been right.
You can also see the cabbages I planted at the same time as the peas. They are doing fine but have not grown as much. This surprised me a little. I was actually expecting them to do better with the cold than the peas but I was wrong. I'm going to have to wait several more weeks before they're ready to eat.
The spinach really hasn't been a good test. I planted the seeds in the lowest part of the garden and they got flooded on several occasions when it rained hard. I may experiment with them next winter.
For the small garden that I have, being able to multiply crops is one way to maximize the use of limited resources. But there are also real benefits from small gardens. I have an abundance of compost and my yields are much higher than commercial growers. My plants are also completely in their element. Since taking the picture, they have added several more inches to each tip and have become top-heavy, falling over into the adjacent rows - the pea equivalent to inebriation, I'm sure. Worm castings are piling up around the stones and spring is well under-way.
This is a bit unusual for most gardeners, I know. The common wisdom is to plant peas sometime in March, recognizing that they can take a little frost. I've heard that even on very cold nights, they can survive if covered in snow - or under a light compost no doubt. Planting in March might be a good idea for northerners. But for the citizens of Fresno planting so late would be a shame. Why plant in March when you can be eating peas in March. My advice to anybody with mild winters is to plant peas in October.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Honor Codes, Chivalry and Human Nature
Last week Brigham Young University (BYU) sports fans (including myself) were disappointed with the news that Brandon Davies was suspended from the school’s basketball team. The young man had violated the school’s honor code that does not allow premarital sex.
Davies was a starting forward for the team that was reaching the end of its regular season schedule with a remarkable record of 27 wins and only 2 losses. Just prior to Davies’s suspension the team was ranked 3rd nationally and anticipated getting a number 1 bid to the post-season NCAA tournament. The game following his suspension, BYU suffered an embarrassing loss that seemed to presage the end of the team’s success.
Commentators across the country have been mixed in their responses. Many have commended the school for holding to its standards (even though many don’t agree with them). Others have complained that such moral requirements are unrealistic in the modern world where premarital sex is the norm. Nobody, however, seems to be paying much attention to what it means to have honor codes in the first place – especially honor codes that affect athletic programs. But the issue is a significant one. It involves the question of who we are as human beings. Are we animals only, or are we something more?
From an evolutionary perspective sports are usually understood to be a sort of catharsis for the human tendency of aggression and war. Men in particular are adapted to defend themselves and their families and have an innate drive to be aggressive – or to compete. Human societies, especially those that include cities where people live in close proximity to each other, need to have a way of diffusing this latent aggressive urge. Athletic games are a way of doing this.
One of the obvious ways that this works is because there are rules. If humans were only capable of following animal instincts, athletic games would not be possible. This doesn’t mean that animals don’t play or engage in mock battles – they do. We are all familiar with the tumbling antics of wrestling puppies. But athletic games are different. They involve rules that are learned, not just instincts.
But they also involve more than just rules - or at least they used to. Tradition has it that the ancient Olympic Games were initiated because of a religious desire to honor the gods and restore peace. Modern athletic games have also developed from a code of honor. I refer to the medieval code of chivalry.
It is well understood that medieval knights served a military purpose. It is also accepted that they were defenders of Christianity, and of women and children. When they engaged in tournaments they were competing in games of war but with strict rules of engagement. They also acknowledged that they were defending a higher ideal. This was evident in their respect for the cross and in their recognition of women. We recall in Sir Walter Scott’s chivalric novel Ivanhoe how the disinherited knight (winner of a regal tournament) honors the Lady Rowena as the Queen of Love and Beauty.
This was not just an imaginative literary invention of Scott. A real code of honor existed that knights were supposed to live by. It dated at least from the time of Charlemagne and is memorialized in the Song of Roland where 17 knightly virtues are mentioned such as: to fear God and maintain His church, to protect the weak and defenseless, to give succor to widows and orphans, to despise pecuniary reward, to keep faith, to respect the honor of women, never to turn the back upon a foe, etc.
In this time of knightly honor, manliness was acknowledged as an extension of spiritual strength. In fact it was through spiritual power that the knight rightly drew for strength. As David O. McKay was famous for saying (half a century ago), “spirituality … is the consciousness of victory over self and of communion with the infinite.”
Unfortunately, we hardly remember anymore the chivalric beginning of modern sports. It doesn’t serve our purposes anyway. Chivalry was all about men and their need to defend faith, women and children – hardly worthy motives to the modern world.
It is much easier to accept the evolutionary explanation of sports as martial catharsis and leave it at that. Or, more realistically, we ignore the history and science altogether and just play games for the fun of it.
But this only gets us into trouble. It leaves us morally and culturally ungrounded. When we ignore who we really are – that we have both animal and divine natures – sporting events become nothing more than the glorified human version of a spat of fighting monkeys. Winning is the only thing that matters and working oneself into a froth of aggression is accepted and even applauded. Democratic man, it seems, is ever willing to behave like the beasts.
Yet it goes without saying that there is no honor for a victorious beast. Maybe he wins a mate (the so-called highest goal of evolutionary fitness) or scares off a rival. But he remains a beast.
And so it is with us. Our world has forgotten where it came from. It no longer wishes to acknowledge its historic faith and the dignity that comes from honoring the divine part of human nature. Yet this forgetfulness comes with a price, a diminishment of who we are. Games without codes of honor are no more able to dignify man than are the carnal hysterias of mobs.
So whether or not BYU wins any more games this year, it has already won the more important test. It has insisted that honoring noble rules – shall we say chivalric rules – is more important than mere mortal victories. Honor means more than the madness of crowds. And the victory of self is a far greater achievement than just winning a game.
References
Girouard, Mark. 1982. The Return to Camelot, Chivalry and then English Gentleman. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
McKay, David O. Conference Report 1969; in, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church, David O. McKay. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Scott, Sir Walter. Ivanhoe. The Easton Press (1977 edition).
Sipes, Richard E. 1973. War, Sports and Aggression: An Empirical Test of Two Rival Theories. American Anthropologist 75(1): 64-86.
Davies was a starting forward for the team that was reaching the end of its regular season schedule with a remarkable record of 27 wins and only 2 losses. Just prior to Davies’s suspension the team was ranked 3rd nationally and anticipated getting a number 1 bid to the post-season NCAA tournament. The game following his suspension, BYU suffered an embarrassing loss that seemed to presage the end of the team’s success.
Commentators across the country have been mixed in their responses. Many have commended the school for holding to its standards (even though many don’t agree with them). Others have complained that such moral requirements are unrealistic in the modern world where premarital sex is the norm. Nobody, however, seems to be paying much attention to what it means to have honor codes in the first place – especially honor codes that affect athletic programs. But the issue is a significant one. It involves the question of who we are as human beings. Are we animals only, or are we something more?
From an evolutionary perspective sports are usually understood to be a sort of catharsis for the human tendency of aggression and war. Men in particular are adapted to defend themselves and their families and have an innate drive to be aggressive – or to compete. Human societies, especially those that include cities where people live in close proximity to each other, need to have a way of diffusing this latent aggressive urge. Athletic games are a way of doing this.
One of the obvious ways that this works is because there are rules. If humans were only capable of following animal instincts, athletic games would not be possible. This doesn’t mean that animals don’t play or engage in mock battles – they do. We are all familiar with the tumbling antics of wrestling puppies. But athletic games are different. They involve rules that are learned, not just instincts.
But they also involve more than just rules - or at least they used to. Tradition has it that the ancient Olympic Games were initiated because of a religious desire to honor the gods and restore peace. Modern athletic games have also developed from a code of honor. I refer to the medieval code of chivalry.
It is well understood that medieval knights served a military purpose. It is also accepted that they were defenders of Christianity, and of women and children. When they engaged in tournaments they were competing in games of war but with strict rules of engagement. They also acknowledged that they were defending a higher ideal. This was evident in their respect for the cross and in their recognition of women. We recall in Sir Walter Scott’s chivalric novel Ivanhoe how the disinherited knight (winner of a regal tournament) honors the Lady Rowena as the Queen of Love and Beauty.
This was not just an imaginative literary invention of Scott. A real code of honor existed that knights were supposed to live by. It dated at least from the time of Charlemagne and is memorialized in the Song of Roland where 17 knightly virtues are mentioned such as: to fear God and maintain His church, to protect the weak and defenseless, to give succor to widows and orphans, to despise pecuniary reward, to keep faith, to respect the honor of women, never to turn the back upon a foe, etc.
In this time of knightly honor, manliness was acknowledged as an extension of spiritual strength. In fact it was through spiritual power that the knight rightly drew for strength. As David O. McKay was famous for saying (half a century ago), “spirituality … is the consciousness of victory over self and of communion with the infinite.”
Unfortunately, we hardly remember anymore the chivalric beginning of modern sports. It doesn’t serve our purposes anyway. Chivalry was all about men and their need to defend faith, women and children – hardly worthy motives to the modern world.
It is much easier to accept the evolutionary explanation of sports as martial catharsis and leave it at that. Or, more realistically, we ignore the history and science altogether and just play games for the fun of it.
But this only gets us into trouble. It leaves us morally and culturally ungrounded. When we ignore who we really are – that we have both animal and divine natures – sporting events become nothing more than the glorified human version of a spat of fighting monkeys. Winning is the only thing that matters and working oneself into a froth of aggression is accepted and even applauded. Democratic man, it seems, is ever willing to behave like the beasts.
Yet it goes without saying that there is no honor for a victorious beast. Maybe he wins a mate (the so-called highest goal of evolutionary fitness) or scares off a rival. But he remains a beast.
And so it is with us. Our world has forgotten where it came from. It no longer wishes to acknowledge its historic faith and the dignity that comes from honoring the divine part of human nature. Yet this forgetfulness comes with a price, a diminishment of who we are. Games without codes of honor are no more able to dignify man than are the carnal hysterias of mobs.
So whether or not BYU wins any more games this year, it has already won the more important test. It has insisted that honoring noble rules – shall we say chivalric rules – is more important than mere mortal victories. Honor means more than the madness of crowds. And the victory of self is a far greater achievement than just winning a game.
References
Girouard, Mark. 1982. The Return to Camelot, Chivalry and then English Gentleman. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
McKay, David O. Conference Report 1969; in, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church, David O. McKay. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Scott, Sir Walter. Ivanhoe. The Easton Press (1977 edition).
Sipes, Richard E. 1973. War, Sports and Aggression: An Empirical Test of Two Rival Theories. American Anthropologist 75(1): 64-86.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Sustainability and the GMO Myth
Almost everybody agrees that we should be wiser with our resources. Most of us also agree that a worthy measure of this goal is sustainability. To this end, people with very different personal and political commitments are working together in local communities to recycle trash, conserve water and save energy, etc.
Studies regularly show that consumers prefer buying certified lumber and pesticide-free food if the price is right. And with the price of gas continuously rising, fuel efficient vehicles are clear favorites on the market.
It’s no wonder that agricultural companies have an interest in promoting a corporate image of sustainability as well. It pays, after all. And such an image is desperately needed in an industry that struggles to keep intact an aura of environmental integrity.
I joined the agriculture industry in 1991 working for a small environmentally conscious company named AgriDyne Technologies. We developed a natural insecticide from the seeds of the Asian neem tree. Our competitors were a handful of like-minded enthusiasts focused on making money by a safer use of natural resources - of being sustainable. These efforts, all combined, have made only a limited impact in the Ag industry. And it wasn’t until the major Ag businesses took up the torch of sustainability that the message became more visible.
One of the first real corporate statements of this kind came in 1997 in a Harvard Business Review interview with Robert Shapiro (then CEO of Monsanto). Entitled Growth Through Global Sustainability, Shapiro outlined the need for agribusiness to develop in a sustainable way if it hoped to avoid disaster and at the same time feed an ever growing world population. Since Shapiro’s interview other major agricultural companies began promoting their own brands of sustainability too.
Monsanto had a lot to gain from this message. With a history replete with environmental negligence (including the disaster of Agent Orange in Vietnam, corruption during the dioxin “catastrophe” at Seveso, and the misuse of data in the Bovine Growth Hormone Affair, etc.) it had recently discovered a promising new direction: genetically modified organisms (or GMO’s).
What made these GMO’s so nice was the appearance of sustainability that they created. They promised to reduce the rate of toxic chemicals in the environment (by containing them within the crop itself). They also promised to reduce soil erosion (by allowing no-till farming with their premier herbicide Roundup).
Of course there are many other components needed in a truly sustainable environment: renewable energy, biodiversity, water conservation, etc. But the two pieces Monsanto promoted were a good place to start, and the company has been successful in promoting them, or at least in part.
Now over a decade later, enough time has passed to see how truly sustainable the GMO revolution has been. Sad to say, it hasn’t been. I don’t mean it hasn’t made Monsanto a lot of money - it has. I do mean that the industry is no closer to creating sustainable growth than it was in the 90’s.
The most obvious cause of GMO failure has been insect and weed resistance. The cotton bollworm, for example, can no longer be controlled consistently with GMO cotton, especially in the Southeastern US. Resistance has also been detected in India.
More importantly, there are now a number of weeds (such as pigweed, horseweed, and giant ragweed) that can’t be controlled with Roundup - Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide and driver of many GMO varieties (that were made so that Roundup could be sprayed over the top of them without harm). Because of resistance, an increasing amount of chemical inputs are required. There is no evidence that the GMO promise has reduced chemical use in the least. In fact, chemical use has actually increased.
In the meantime, millions of acres of GMO corn, soybeans, wheat, etc. are planted worldwide with claims that their use will revolutionize the landscape of global food production and overcome hunger. Sadly, these claims have been seriously misleading - not only because of resistant weeds and increasing chemical use but also because of the loss of crop diversity that the GMO revolution is causing – a loss that strikes at the heart of sustainability.
A classic example of how this happens is in Mexico where GMO corn has disrupted the centuries-old agricultural practices in the heartland of corn diversity.
In the Oaxaca region over 150 local varieties of corn are grown. These have been developed through traditional methods of crop selection and cross-fertilization. Individual families have generations of knowledge invested in these crops and they can be counted on to breed true – or at least true enough to sustain the communities growing the corn and to perpetuate the local varieties.
Unfortunately an increasing number of these varieties are being contaminated by the genes of GMO corn that have been transferred by wind-blown pollen from far away. This threatens the traditional agriculture in a couple of ways. The most immediate is that the genetic contaminants are patented and recognized internationally as somebody’s property - somebody’s, that is, except the local farmers.
But perhaps more serious is the unpredictability of the GMO’s themselves, which are made in a very random process. The manipulated genes that provide “advantages” to a plant can, and do, show up in all sorts of places in the host DNA. Some arrangements seem to show no significant changes to a plant’s appearance. Other arrangements, however, produce truly monstrous phenotypes. What sort of effect might this contamination have on these local communities? Nobody knows.
Of course, this sort of thing might never get out of hand. Perhaps local plant breeders could eliminate the harmful genes over generations. In the meantime, however, it is not wise to pursue a poorly understood technology when so much is at stake. This is just one example of the conflicting sustainability claims of GMO’s.
This may all seem like a science fiction fantasy with its cutting edge technology and impending global disaster. In fact literary entrepreneurs have not been blind to this opportunity. James Rollins’s recent thriller The Doomsday Key is an excellent example. The story centers on a cryptic guild of early Europeans and a fictional corporate giant called Viatus that are tied up in the use of GMO’s to reduce the world’s human population. US secret service agents end up discovering the threat that was taken from an ancient secret surrounding the medieval Doomsday Book. Of course many parts of this story are clearly unrealistic. Some however are not far fetched. The reality is that we don’t know how much of such a scenario is fantastic and how much might actually occur.
One thing we do know, however – or at least we should know – involves the biggest error in all of the GMO sustainability claims: the justification that a larger population needs more food.
At first blush this might seem obvious. The human population is growing at an alarming rate. Certainly the ever-increasing number of people will need to have something to eat. Claiming otherwise seems like an outright admission of misanthropy.
Robert Shapiro went so far as to suggest that a failure to embrace this vision of sustainability would relegate the world to starvation - or to use his own sarcasm: “letting the Malthusian process work its magic on the population”.
The mistake that Shapiro makes here is a big one. Sadly it is a mistake that far too many people make - even people that should know better. Population growth rises to the level of available resources. It is not an independent factor. Malthus was clear on this.
The truth of the matter is that agricultural technology is the primary cause of population growth, not an ancillary science struggling to keep up with it. Shapiro’s claim that Monsanto’s vision is required to feed a hungry world is exactly backwards. It is causing population growth.
Now I am not arguing that we should go back to the dark ages - giving up all our technology - in order to starve the world into a level of fewer people. I am arguing that a blind acceptance of industrial solutions is misguided. Making more and more food is not the answer. Helping more and more people make their own food, is.
Several years ago Barry Commoner pointed out the counter-intuitive relationship between population growth on the one hand and education and health care on the other. Places with higher education and better health care have lower levels of population growth. It has also been shown that open markets contribute to this same trend and improve living conditions for the greater good. But there is a big danger when we presume to take global responsibility. It’s all too easy to move from the ethics of democratic capitalism (sensu Michael Novak) to a presumed virtue of global industry (sensu Monsanto et al.). And it is in this failed transition that we make serious mistakes that make us less sustainable, not more so.
The current state of affairs will only bring more and more technology to developing countries that enrich the major global industries, making poorer peoples more and more dependent, and driving them away from the land and their best hope for true sustainability. More people will migrate to urban areas creating even larger cities with larger slums and greater hunger. It doesn’t take an Old Testament prophet to see all this happening.
If, however, we stop dragging local farmers into our version of the global economy, they will adopt those technologies that make sense to them. Local businesses will succeed, local people will live more dignified lives. Food may be relatively more expensive, but this is not the major problem that it seems. Simple clean housing in developing countries has never been the 30-year burden that it is to us in the developed world. Through the entire history of the planet people have lived fulfilled lives by farming - by spending more resources than we do on food. What may be surprising is that these “higher” priced foods tend to be less processed, and arguably healthier than the cheap diets foisted upon us by industrial society. The fact is that rising food prices becomes a serious problem primarily for those that don’t raise their own food. Those who do somehow manage to get by.
We can create a better world - a more sustainable world. But it won’t happen with an industrial mindset or with industrial tools. It will happen when we stop imposing ourselves on to our poorer neighbors and start focusing our efforts at home. If industry wants to be a true contributor to the problems facing us, let it help local communities become sustainable (without strings attached to global markets). Let it help motivate more people to take up farming, even to the point of empowering small farmers. We need to build soil, save energy, conserve water, and care for our own biotas locally. But claiming that we can save the world using self-serving technologies and economies that we don’t even understand is a recipe for disaster.
References
Commoner, Barry. 1988 Ecology and Social Action; In, The Conservators of Hope. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, Idaho.
Magretta, Joan. 1997. Growth Through Global Sustainability: An Interview with Monsanto’s CEO, Robert B. Shapiro. Harvard Business Review, January-February.
Novak, Michael. 1982. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. Touchstone, New York.
Robin, M.-M. 2008. The World According to Monsanto. The New Press, New York.
Rollins, James. 2009. The Doomsday Key. Harper, New York, New York.
Studies regularly show that consumers prefer buying certified lumber and pesticide-free food if the price is right. And with the price of gas continuously rising, fuel efficient vehicles are clear favorites on the market.
It’s no wonder that agricultural companies have an interest in promoting a corporate image of sustainability as well. It pays, after all. And such an image is desperately needed in an industry that struggles to keep intact an aura of environmental integrity.
I joined the agriculture industry in 1991 working for a small environmentally conscious company named AgriDyne Technologies. We developed a natural insecticide from the seeds of the Asian neem tree. Our competitors were a handful of like-minded enthusiasts focused on making money by a safer use of natural resources - of being sustainable. These efforts, all combined, have made only a limited impact in the Ag industry. And it wasn’t until the major Ag businesses took up the torch of sustainability that the message became more visible.
One of the first real corporate statements of this kind came in 1997 in a Harvard Business Review interview with Robert Shapiro (then CEO of Monsanto). Entitled Growth Through Global Sustainability, Shapiro outlined the need for agribusiness to develop in a sustainable way if it hoped to avoid disaster and at the same time feed an ever growing world population. Since Shapiro’s interview other major agricultural companies began promoting their own brands of sustainability too.
Monsanto had a lot to gain from this message. With a history replete with environmental negligence (including the disaster of Agent Orange in Vietnam, corruption during the dioxin “catastrophe” at Seveso, and the misuse of data in the Bovine Growth Hormone Affair, etc.) it had recently discovered a promising new direction: genetically modified organisms (or GMO’s).
What made these GMO’s so nice was the appearance of sustainability that they created. They promised to reduce the rate of toxic chemicals in the environment (by containing them within the crop itself). They also promised to reduce soil erosion (by allowing no-till farming with their premier herbicide Roundup).
Of course there are many other components needed in a truly sustainable environment: renewable energy, biodiversity, water conservation, etc. But the two pieces Monsanto promoted were a good place to start, and the company has been successful in promoting them, or at least in part.
Now over a decade later, enough time has passed to see how truly sustainable the GMO revolution has been. Sad to say, it hasn’t been. I don’t mean it hasn’t made Monsanto a lot of money - it has. I do mean that the industry is no closer to creating sustainable growth than it was in the 90’s.
The most obvious cause of GMO failure has been insect and weed resistance. The cotton bollworm, for example, can no longer be controlled consistently with GMO cotton, especially in the Southeastern US. Resistance has also been detected in India.
More importantly, there are now a number of weeds (such as pigweed, horseweed, and giant ragweed) that can’t be controlled with Roundup - Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide and driver of many GMO varieties (that were made so that Roundup could be sprayed over the top of them without harm). Because of resistance, an increasing amount of chemical inputs are required. There is no evidence that the GMO promise has reduced chemical use in the least. In fact, chemical use has actually increased.
In the meantime, millions of acres of GMO corn, soybeans, wheat, etc. are planted worldwide with claims that their use will revolutionize the landscape of global food production and overcome hunger. Sadly, these claims have been seriously misleading - not only because of resistant weeds and increasing chemical use but also because of the loss of crop diversity that the GMO revolution is causing – a loss that strikes at the heart of sustainability.
A classic example of how this happens is in Mexico where GMO corn has disrupted the centuries-old agricultural practices in the heartland of corn diversity.
In the Oaxaca region over 150 local varieties of corn are grown. These have been developed through traditional methods of crop selection and cross-fertilization. Individual families have generations of knowledge invested in these crops and they can be counted on to breed true – or at least true enough to sustain the communities growing the corn and to perpetuate the local varieties.
Unfortunately an increasing number of these varieties are being contaminated by the genes of GMO corn that have been transferred by wind-blown pollen from far away. This threatens the traditional agriculture in a couple of ways. The most immediate is that the genetic contaminants are patented and recognized internationally as somebody’s property - somebody’s, that is, except the local farmers.
But perhaps more serious is the unpredictability of the GMO’s themselves, which are made in a very random process. The manipulated genes that provide “advantages” to a plant can, and do, show up in all sorts of places in the host DNA. Some arrangements seem to show no significant changes to a plant’s appearance. Other arrangements, however, produce truly monstrous phenotypes. What sort of effect might this contamination have on these local communities? Nobody knows.
Of course, this sort of thing might never get out of hand. Perhaps local plant breeders could eliminate the harmful genes over generations. In the meantime, however, it is not wise to pursue a poorly understood technology when so much is at stake. This is just one example of the conflicting sustainability claims of GMO’s.
This may all seem like a science fiction fantasy with its cutting edge technology and impending global disaster. In fact literary entrepreneurs have not been blind to this opportunity. James Rollins’s recent thriller The Doomsday Key is an excellent example. The story centers on a cryptic guild of early Europeans and a fictional corporate giant called Viatus that are tied up in the use of GMO’s to reduce the world’s human population. US secret service agents end up discovering the threat that was taken from an ancient secret surrounding the medieval Doomsday Book. Of course many parts of this story are clearly unrealistic. Some however are not far fetched. The reality is that we don’t know how much of such a scenario is fantastic and how much might actually occur.
One thing we do know, however – or at least we should know – involves the biggest error in all of the GMO sustainability claims: the justification that a larger population needs more food.
At first blush this might seem obvious. The human population is growing at an alarming rate. Certainly the ever-increasing number of people will need to have something to eat. Claiming otherwise seems like an outright admission of misanthropy.
Robert Shapiro went so far as to suggest that a failure to embrace this vision of sustainability would relegate the world to starvation - or to use his own sarcasm: “letting the Malthusian process work its magic on the population”.
The mistake that Shapiro makes here is a big one. Sadly it is a mistake that far too many people make - even people that should know better. Population growth rises to the level of available resources. It is not an independent factor. Malthus was clear on this.
The truth of the matter is that agricultural technology is the primary cause of population growth, not an ancillary science struggling to keep up with it. Shapiro’s claim that Monsanto’s vision is required to feed a hungry world is exactly backwards. It is causing population growth.
Now I am not arguing that we should go back to the dark ages - giving up all our technology - in order to starve the world into a level of fewer people. I am arguing that a blind acceptance of industrial solutions is misguided. Making more and more food is not the answer. Helping more and more people make their own food, is.
Several years ago Barry Commoner pointed out the counter-intuitive relationship between population growth on the one hand and education and health care on the other. Places with higher education and better health care have lower levels of population growth. It has also been shown that open markets contribute to this same trend and improve living conditions for the greater good. But there is a big danger when we presume to take global responsibility. It’s all too easy to move from the ethics of democratic capitalism (sensu Michael Novak) to a presumed virtue of global industry (sensu Monsanto et al.). And it is in this failed transition that we make serious mistakes that make us less sustainable, not more so.
The current state of affairs will only bring more and more technology to developing countries that enrich the major global industries, making poorer peoples more and more dependent, and driving them away from the land and their best hope for true sustainability. More people will migrate to urban areas creating even larger cities with larger slums and greater hunger. It doesn’t take an Old Testament prophet to see all this happening.
If, however, we stop dragging local farmers into our version of the global economy, they will adopt those technologies that make sense to them. Local businesses will succeed, local people will live more dignified lives. Food may be relatively more expensive, but this is not the major problem that it seems. Simple clean housing in developing countries has never been the 30-year burden that it is to us in the developed world. Through the entire history of the planet people have lived fulfilled lives by farming - by spending more resources than we do on food. What may be surprising is that these “higher” priced foods tend to be less processed, and arguably healthier than the cheap diets foisted upon us by industrial society. The fact is that rising food prices becomes a serious problem primarily for those that don’t raise their own food. Those who do somehow manage to get by.
We can create a better world - a more sustainable world. But it won’t happen with an industrial mindset or with industrial tools. It will happen when we stop imposing ourselves on to our poorer neighbors and start focusing our efforts at home. If industry wants to be a true contributor to the problems facing us, let it help local communities become sustainable (without strings attached to global markets). Let it help motivate more people to take up farming, even to the point of empowering small farmers. We need to build soil, save energy, conserve water, and care for our own biotas locally. But claiming that we can save the world using self-serving technologies and economies that we don’t even understand is a recipe for disaster.
References
Commoner, Barry. 1988 Ecology and Social Action; In, The Conservators of Hope. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, Idaho.
Magretta, Joan. 1997. Growth Through Global Sustainability: An Interview with Monsanto’s CEO, Robert B. Shapiro. Harvard Business Review, January-February.
Novak, Michael. 1982. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. Touchstone, New York.
Robin, M.-M. 2008. The World According to Monsanto. The New Press, New York.
Rollins, James. 2009. The Doomsday Key. Harper, New York, New York.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
