The Impossibility of Money

It should be clear by now that our current monetary systems are failing us, or at least the vast majority of us. It has reached the point for me, personally, where I am questioning the very existence of currency, let alone how it behaves. As long as we accept the contemporary and historical paradigm, we are unlikely to generate positive change (and I’m not talking about coins).

I can’t get over the irony that money is called “currency,” evoking the word “current,” as in something that flows. That is not what happens in our economies. Currency gets backed up behind the dam(n) of capitalism, hoarded by a tiny minority.

Cryptocurrency was, to me, an off-putting concept from the beginning, but I only recently figured out why. While the idea of alternative forms of transactions is attractive, this is not the answer, for many reasons.

The currency of my livelihood is words, so I am disappointed in myself for not immediately recognizing the obvious. “Crypto” is Greek for “hidden,” as in cryptozoology, the study of sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, and related legends. Fascinating, but there is not widespread subscription to the idea, kind of like cryptocurrency. The last thing we need for our economy is more hidden currency. We already have offshore bank accounts and other tax havens. We need total transparency in matters of money.

The energy demands for running blockchain are another reason for concern. The server farms consume massive amounts of electricity for their operation. The same can be said for generative AI (Artificial Intelligence), and data mining, too. Such large server farms are also incredibly loud, running twenty-four hours, seven days a week, generating noise complaints along with Bitcoin.

Beyond the energy-intensive aspect, cryptocurrency has other shortcomings. It has yet to be widely accepted by retail businesses. It requires technology that is still inaccessible to many, by choice or by reliability of internet service providers. Don’t get me started on NFTs (Non-fungible Tokens). Lastly, there is understandable consumer skepticism over crypto’s validity, valuation, and sustainability.

The most attractive attribute of cryptocurrency might be the perception that it is somehow subversive, a way of undermining conventional capitalist models. It’s complex nature and dependence on technology ensure that it will likely remain the domain of a different, tech-savvy minority. Perhaps it is the “snob appeal” I am mistaking for subversion.

A truly viable alternative currency will have to come from the bottom up, designed for communities of all levels, from local to global. As it stands now, we have currency of an arbitrary value, determined by a select minority, and that is demonstrably unsustainable, at least in the environmental sense. There exists a different model that might serve as a template.

The currency of the natural world is energy. It has an absolute, invariable value. Can energy be hoarded? Not permanently, and certainly not generationally. Various organisms are able to store energy to use during hibernation, metamorphosis, and other stressful processes and circumstances. Otherwise, energy cycles freely, allowing the proper functioning of ecosystem transactions.

The challenge of emulating a natural model is to do so without the attendant predatory and parasitic forms of energy exchange. We have that in spades in the capitalist model, and the trend is toward exacerbating that pattern rather than nullifying it.

The true revolution in currency will have to be organic. The leadership for it will probably come from Indigenous peoples, provided we allow that, and can forge alliances with labor and consumer unions. Existing models for localized currencies might help inform such a movement. Promoting interest in, and subscription to, credit unions and cooperative businesses will only enhance the effort.

The incentives for promoting blockchain tech are still profit-driven, as opposed to even trying to balance the common good. I think I have more faith in the imagination of artists to take us in a positive direction here. Pair that brand of creativity with economic and social justice disciplines, and we might be able to get something truly equitable. Finally.

Punishment

That’s what all this has been about from the beginning, isn’t it? Punishment for your imaginary enemies, and those public servants whose job it is to protect the citizenry from scoundrels like you. Punish those “deviants” who only want the freedom to live their authentic lives, free from fear of violence and bullying and discrimination. Punishment for women who dare to assert their rights to bodily autonomy, and equality in the business world. Punishment for those immigrants seeking asylum and a better living, fleeing from oppressive regimes like the one you envision for yourself. The thing is, none of those demographics deserves punishment; nor does anyone who loves and advocates for them.

Insulated from the hoi polloi by your inherited affluence and celebrity, you consistently and successfully portray yourself as a victim. Bravo. That should win you an Oscar or an Emmy, but not an election to the Oval Office. You are by every measure a perpetrator. Maybe we should spell it “perpetraitor," instead, given that your political BFFs are dictators and war criminals.

Your campaign of distraction has been frighteningly successful. You managed to draw attention away from the criminally affluent who are truly ruining our country, and the planet, and shift the focus to demonizing artificial subsets of humanity that make easy scapegoats. Complicit in your diabolical scheme has been religious extremism, bending the Bible to your benefit. Your benefactors have muzzled the formerly free press, if not enslaved it, for your benefit.

It is clear that you have no interest in improving the lives of anyone but yourself and your heirs, and perhaps those billionaires to whom you owe privileges. Your rank and file either don’t see that, or you have convinced them that the wanton suffering of others is enough to entertain them while you rob them blind.

The only thing guaranteed by your administration is the continued misery of runaway corporate capitalism, White supremacy, LGBTQ intolerance, mass incarceration, Christian nationalism, and climate change denial, to name but a few of the atrocities you willfully and joyfully represent.

Your “concepts of a plan” for healthcare, your addiction to tariffs as the panacea for economic prosperity, and your fervent desire to “drill, baby, drill” would be laughable were it not for the very real, dire consequences of your ineptitude. Your foreign policy acumen is so warped and lacking that you pose a clear and present danger to the very nation you seek to govern.

What do you expect me to do now? Submit? At least pretend to be red, that coldest of colors? Flee the country and seek asylum of my own? Those might be tempting options, but they are not in my nature. No, if anything, I will take it up a notch, be the incendiary voice for truly radical progressive policies, an advocate for lifestyles that work in harmony with the rest of life on Earth.

Congratulations, then, on making me even more intolerant of you, and those who support you, even those who refused to choose either candidate. They are cowardly, and blind to the damage you will do. I will be committed to standing in your way, at every opportunity.

Sympathy and Neutrality

This is for all my fellow (U.S.) Americans who feel pressured to “stand with Israel” in this latest incarnation of warfare with Islamic extremists. Your discomfort with absolutes is valid, and you have a right to your personal commitment, or lack thereof. No one has the right to coerce you, or question your ethics. Here is why.

© EuropeanTimes.news

First, there is no shame in withholding allegiance if you do not fully comprehend the history of the Middle East and its associated religions. Grant yourself permission to abstain, but make an effort to learn about such matters. Yes, it is treacherous territory, a minefield of misinformation from sources that have an agenda, be it clear or obfuscated. Hamas and Hezbollah are not the same organization, though both are backed by Iran.

Recognize that you are not an Anti-Semite if you do not declare unconditional support for Israel. Should anyone accuse you of such, that reveals more about their character than yours. Most of us have friends who are Jewish, who we cherish and advocate for. We are not holocaust deniers, and in fact stand up against anti-Semitism. By the same measure, we are intolerant of genocide directed at Islam. Extremist groups tend to ruin thing for everyone, ending innocent lives in pursuit of unattainable supremacy.

Here at home, I am fearful of Christian White Nationalists intent on imposing extreme religious constraints on all of our citizens. Banning books today could mean something far worse down the road. Racism and other forms of intolerance, bigotry and oppression go hand-in-hand with this agenda.

Back to the international topic at hand. Personally, when confronted with centuries-long conflicts, my impulse is to punish both sides. Were it in my power, I would throw everyone out of the disputed territories and declare them an International Peace Park, under the administration of the United Nations, where both sides could interpret their positions and histories for visitors, and where wildlife could flourish in what was once a hostile environment to all species. A Palestinian state might look something like Vatican City in Rome, ensconced withing Jerusalem itself. Where, in any event, is the creativity in conflict resolution?

What encourages me are people who speak up for innocent Muslims, which constitute most of the victims of Israeli military retaliation. They question the imbalance between U.S. foreign aid for Israel versus the paltry sum going toward humanitarian aid for the victims of those very bombs and weapons we have helped pay for. How is this helpful?

I am likewise heartened by coalitions of Jews and Muslims, who are peacefully protesting the extremism of both religions. Let us raise their voices and profiles as an example of true bravery and empathy.

I like to hold onto the possibility of God, and It is the entity for which I feel the most sympathy, by whatever name It goes by, should It exist at all. Religion, after all, is a decidedly human institution, and as such is vulnerable to the corruption we see in business, government, and all other human enterprises. The difference is that religion is the one thing we can choose to participate in, or refrain from joining. It has its social benefits, until it does not, until it starts violating someone else’s right to a different belief system. Choose carefully. Maintain an ethic that transcends that of your chosen allegiance. Stay sane, stay safe, keep loving your fellow humans.

The Colonist I Am

It is not commonplace for anyone to acknowledge their ignorance of, or complicity with, colonialism, in either a historical context or in the present day, but here I am, about to do exactly that. Some of our political leaders, and I use that word with great sarcasm, would prefer we remain uneducated, and our children left in the dark as well. It is up to each of us to confront our own blind spots and inadvertent participation in continued colonialism and racism. The overwhelming aspects of both are subtle and insidious, most of the time.

Someone on my late father's side of the family did our genealogy, and traced our New World roots to the Mayflower, quite literally. There were one hundred and two passengers, and a crew of thirty more, on that famous ship, which landed on the shores of Cape Cod, Massachusetts in 1620. A year prior, a different ship, the White Lion, brought the first African slaves to a colony in Virginia. Slaves of Spanish explorers coming to North America predate the English transport by nearly a century. My forefathers may not have started the fire, but they made no effort to extinguish it, either.

Somewhere between inappropriate pride in a White heritage, and shame and guilt about the past, there must be a plan of personal action to rectify injustices.

Did any of my ancestors actually own slaves? I have no idea, though it might be worth exploring. I would be interested to know if my family tree has any ties to Indigenous Americans, too. Is it necessary, though, to have a personal stake in the history of slavery to have empathy for the enslaved, the imprisoned, the opressed and murdered? I think not. Somewhere between inappropriate pride in a White heritage, and shame and guilt about the past, there must be a plan of personal action to rectify injustices. This applies even if you have not personally committed some overt act of bigotry, or incidental trespass. It begins with self-evaluation.

In creating a presentation recently for an organization of entomologists, it occurred to me how much overlap there is between environmental devastation and racism and colonialism. I asked myself why the scale of agriculture has intensified, beyond the Industrial Revolution, which amplified the Agricultural Revolution through mechanization, and now automation. Is it because we cannot feed the world any other way? No. In fact, those of us in the Western Hemisphere have an expectation that other nations feed us first, and themselves second.

I drink coffee. I love chocolate....Do my choices in the mareketplace make me a colonist all over again? Still?

Mea culpa. I eat bananas. I drink coffee. I love chocolate, and I no doubt consume my fair share of products made with palm oil. I enjoy pineapple on occasion. These crops have traditionally required deforestation to clear the land for their vast plantations. That is an environmental holocaust, but it also impacts indigenous human populations in a negative fashion. Where they are growing export crops they are not growing food for themselves.

Do my choices in the marketplace make me a colonist all over again? Still? Maybe. I have some soul-searching to do, some critical decisions to make if I do not wish to contribute to poverty and economic colonialism.

Being an ally to Black and Indigenous people here at home requires a different kind of effort. First, we have to commit to educating ourselves. Beyond Black History month, we need to examine the impediments that we have erected, on purpose or by ignorance, that prohibit or discourage participation in our workplaces, our public spaces, and neighborhoods and communities. In short, being an ally does not begin and end with joining protests over the most recent death at the hands of law enforcement, or other racist hate crime. The "everyday racism" is more difficult to detect and takes more work to eliminate.

If we can afford to finance wars, militarize the police, subsidize certain industries and corporations, and protect those with excessive wealth through tax legislation, then we can damn well afford reparations.

At a national level, there is talk of extending reparations: tangible financial benefits for the descendants of slaves. That puts the onous on Black people to prove they are related to former slaves. In my opinion, reparations should be made to Blacks, period, as they continue to face racism. I would also argue that reparations be given to Indigenous Americans. As it stands now, Whites are still mostly deciding where Indigenous and Black Americans can live, what jobs they can hold, and what rights they can enjoy.

Can we afford to pay reparations? If we can afford to finance wars, militarize the police, subsidize certain industries and corporations, and protect those with excessive wealth through tax legislation, then we can damn well afford reparations. You know where this is going. We should be paying reparations instead of financing endeavors that only serve to enrich those who are already wealthy.

As a Caucasian, cis, straight male, I do not feel threatened in any way by the idea of empowering those who have faced nothing but adversity for centuries on end. To the contrary, I believe my life is enriched beyond measure by knowing people of all identities. I learn from them, and I am a better, more sensitive and empathetic human being for it. There is no down side.

Learning how I can effectively participate in decolonization and anti-racism is an ongoing journey I have barely embarked on. With my White privilege comes the luxury of time to think, read, and listen. You, dear reader and follower, are invited to contribute your input, start conversations, and otherwise advance our collective goal of diversity, equality, and inclusion.

A Letter to Senator Cory Gardner

© HuffingtonPost.com

Clever. Clever, but cruel and cowardly to draft, in secret, healthcare legislation that will impact millions of citizens. Who could complain about a bill that they haven't even seen? Shucks, not even most senators have been privy to the plan. Maybe that is what the President means when he says this is a "mean" bill. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left to do what? Rely on what the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is telling us? No matter, given past and present trends and tendencies of this session of Congress and this presidential administration, we can piece together what we are in for if this bill passes the Senate. So, please understand that the overwhelming majority of your constituents, including this one, are vehemently opposed to this bill and we expect your vote to reflect this. You need to defeat this bill.

May I politely, but assertively, remind you that you were not elected to guarantee increased profits for insurance companies, their CEOs and shareholders, and others who are affluent enough that they can pay for their own healthcare. You were not elected to argue for the interests of pharmaceutical companies, their CEOs, and shareholders, either. You were not elected to weaken environmental, consumer, and labor regulations so that the working class would face more risk without recourse to affordable healthcare. You were not elected to compromise the reproductive health choices of your female constituents. You were not elected to make firearms more accessible to citizens of dubious capacity who could endanger large numbers of citizens through acts of domestic terrorism. Indeed, you were not elected to shrink affordable mental healthcare. You were not elected to return us to the unsustainable era of fossil fuel dominance that has put us in a climate crisis of multiple yearly natural disasters. In short, you were not elected to put obscene corporate profits above the rights of individual citizens from all walks of life, rich and poor, men and women, children who do not even have voting rights, heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered persons, and people of all ethnicities, religions, countries of origin, and political party persuasions (or lack thereof). You do not represent lobbyists, either. We do not elect lobbyists, and our tax dollars are paying for you to listen to us, not them.

This goes beyond party politics. Democrats have also been all talk and no action, at least tacitly approving of legislation that undermines the welfare of our citizens. We can see through the rhetoric because actions speak louder than words and those actions of late have been highly detrimental to domestic and foreign policy. Right now, the "America first" slogan applies only to rich, Caucasian, and mostly male Americans, and everyone else is left to fight among themselves for the scraps from the feast at the top. This is an irresponsible, repugnant, and intolerable approach to governance. Charity begins at home, and that means that government should be concerned first for its most vulnerable citizens. Children, the elderly, and the destitute will suffer the most from the healthcare bill put before you now. How in good conscience can you approve of this oppressive bill?

A pre-existing condition of many politicians appears to be extreme focus on survival of the financially fittest, but even natural selection is a random force. Life is not fair you say, but I say that our purpose on this planet is to at least try and make it more fair, to increase opportunities for working class families and individuals to prosper. No one can prosper without good physical and mental health. Undermining options for healthcare only weakens the consumer economy. How can you and your colleagues not see that? Should you wish for your own political career to survive, it is in your best interest to start mirroring your home state citizens' wishes, and distance yourself from the influence of industry lobbyists. Thank you.

Zoo Hate and Human Hate

The social media fallout from the recent tragedy involving the euthanizing of a male Lowland Gorilla after a child entered its enclosure has surprised and shocked me, and that is just my reaction to my friends, some of whom I know personally outside of Facebook. The emotionally-charged reactions run the gamut from those who think zoos themselves are an atrocity to the other end of the spectrum claiming that the planet would be better off without people.

© Heidi Eaton

I found myself outraged and disgusted for a number of reasons. I used to work at the Cincinnati Zoo. Several of my former colleagues still work there. My spouse works with gorillas here in Colorado Springs. There but for the grace of God and responsible zoo-goers goes her.

I have attended regional and international gorilla-keeper conferences with her and can attest to the fact that these people pour their heart and soul into their work. Every zoo's gorilla population is closely monitored, every male and female pairing scrupulously evaluated before the animals are ever introduced. The loss of a single captive gorilla has to the potential to throw the whole world zoo community into chaos. Keepers witness things you would never want to see, and then learn how to prevent future episodes like them. They share every experience, from exhilarating and positive, to tragic and devastating, because it is vitally important to do so.

Some people without experience in zoos have been quick to attribute blame for this incident to the zoo. Zoos are inherently risky places for both employees and visitors, but every effort is made to protect guests while furnishing increasingly innovative immersion exhibits. Some animals are, obviously, too dangerous for direct contact, even by keepers, and gorillas are among them. The bottom line, however, is that it is not a zoo's responsibility to protect you from your own reckless behavior, no matter what age you are.

Meanwhile, zoos are critical to efforts aimed at conserving endangered species, especially in the sense of genetic diversity, and raising not only infant animals but also raising the awareness and appreciation of zoo visitors to the plight of the captive's wild brethren. To suggest that (formally accredited) zoos have no place in our world, or are inhumane and cruel, is simply ludicrous. Remember those gorilla keeper conferences? One topic always held in high priority is "enrichment," to insure that captive animals are constantly stimulated physically and emotionally.

My one failing in this discussion is that I am not a parent. It is telling that the people most incensed at the accusations suggesting the mother (and father?) are to blame in this tragedy, are themselves mothers or fathers. The argument invariably goes something like "I can see someone losing sight of their child in an instant, it has happened to me." Perhaps. What do I know, I'm an only child, raised mostly by an overprotective mother in an age that lacked electronic distractions. For better or worse, we are a society that demands accountability; because we so often don't get it, from our government officials to our next door neighbor, we explode with even greater hostility over the next time.

The whole concept of a human life being more important than the life of another organism I find troubling. Religion is largely responsible for conditioning us to believe our species is somehow "above" others, but the fact is that we, too, are animals. We act selfishly, as any other animal does, but we have gone to extremes to disguise that selfishness as, say, "what's in the best interest of the child" in divorce cases. Every other species would love to be in our bipedal shoes, able to limit mortality factors like predators, parasites, and diseases, while eliminating competition for resources and distributing itself widely over an infinite variety of habitats.

So, while it is certainly an extremist notion to suggest that the planet Earth would be better off without Homo sapiens, it is at least somewhat encouraging to see that we might be approaching a consciousness of "species equality." Even if this does not mean granting "rights" to other species, we are guaranteed in the U.S. the right to the "pursuit of happiness." Those of us whose happiness is found in nature are now deprived on one more gorilla.

The fact is that whatever our opinion of this tragic episode, we are going to have personal blank spots. Not everyone knows what it is like to be a zookeeper. Not everyone is a parent. Nobody knows what it is like to be a gorilla in captivity.

The Malheur Incident

Imagine my dismay to learn, while trying to spend quality time with my spouse's family, that one of my favorite places on the planet is being occupied by an armed militia in apparent retaliation for a perceived unjust jury sentence for ranchers convicted of arson. There is so much conflicting information, and such visceral reaction to this incident, that it is difficult to know where to start. I can only speak for myself, so here it goes.

© Bev Wigney

I have visited the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge a handful of times. It is located in extreme southeast Oregon, and is so remote that it is a long haul from anywhere. The Center Patrol Road is just about guaranteed to give you a flat tire every time you drive it. Still, it is worth the effort and trouble to go. The birds and other wildlife are astounding in their diversity and abundance.

Malheur NWR hosts a wide variety of birds like White-faced Ibis and Great Egret© Bev Wigney

My gut-level reaction to hearing of the takeover of the (at the time vacant) headquarters building was "Get the hell off of my refuge!" It is, of course, your refuge, too, but thanks to this "protest," the refuge is closed until further notice. You are being deprived of your right to visit a public facility paid for with your tax dollars.

Refuge headquarters contains instructive dioramas like this one....© Bev Wigney

That, I believe, is the essence of this whole conflict. The protest is selfishly motivated, hostile, and pits private interests against the public good. This is not what I would classify as domestic terrorism, yet, but there are better ways to publicly appeal a court verdict, if that is what this is really about, and certainly better venues. This is only the tip of the iceberg, though.

....and fragile, historically important collections like these eggs© Bev Wigney

The uneasy truce between the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and other federal agencies and private landowners is our current American model for averting what is known as the "tragedy of the commons." This principle dates back perhaps to Aristotle, but certainly to English economist William Forster Lloyd in 1833. His pamphlet was the genesis of the recognition of the potential for abuse of common resources. It was ecologist Garrett Hardin who popularized the term "tragedy of the commons" in 1968 in his essay of that title in the journal Science.

The gist of the argument is that when access to a common resource, such as a cattle pasture, is granted to several stakeholders, each person will act in their own best, short-term interests, such as increasing the number of their own herd. This leads inexorably to the deterioration of that resource.

It can be argued that the leasing of federal lands to ranchers for cattle grazing has prevented irreparable damage to rangeland as a whole by expanding the acreage available for grazing. This is not without consequence, naturally, and success hinges on the cooperation of lessees in the proper, agreed-upon management of the resource.

Violation of laws regarding burning of invasive plants led to the charge of arson when a burn on private land expanded into public land. That much seems to be acknowledged by both parties involved here. What happened in the aftermath is debatable. Here is one side's argument. I would hesitate to call the occupation of refuge headquarters "civil disobedience." It is anything but civil, especially when guns are involved.

It should be noted that your taxes dollars also subsidize the grazing of privately-owned cattle on public land....and at a fraction of the cost a private landowner would charge for grazing. See this story for more about the great deals ranchers get as part of our "socialist" government practices.

The folks holed up in the refuge headquarters building are not terrorists. They are mostly whining cry-babies with guns who think they are getting a raw deal when in fact the feds bend over backwards to appease them. They are hopelessly confusing their "rights" with the privilege of using federal lands for private gain. Yes, ranching is a risky business, but a minority of ranchers do not wish to assume any risk. It is telling that not one of the local communities near the refuge has come out in unanimous support of what is happening. Those engaged in this misguided occupation are clearly extremists.

© Bev Wigney

Do governments have all the answers when it comes to managing resources like rangeland? Of course not. But this kind of behavior threatens to backfire. I can see a day when an incident like this results in the revocation of grazing permits for individuals who participate in unlawful protests; repossession of equipment purchased with government loans; and even more "aggressive" government expansion of public lands as these protestors accuse the feds of doing already. Frankly, at this point, I'd be all for it.