text:
Secular group makes a Montana difference
Donated by the Eagles in the 1960s, a Ten Commandments monument sat alone in front of the Flathead County Courthouse in Kalispell, Mont., until 2004. Under threat of legal action, other temporary displays were added, and it was rebranded briefly as an "Evolution of Law" display.
Based on that and a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, the threat of a lawsuit was dropped. In 2005, after a private fundraising campaign by a county commissioner and the Eagles, permanent granite monuments replaced the temporary ones (including the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta and the Mayflower Compact).
For some reason (any guesses?), the name of the display was then changed to the "Cornerstones of Law." During renovations in 2011, the entire display was relocated to, and remains in, a little noticed nook behind the courthouse. As seen in the photo, the Ten Commandments monument is considerably larger and sits in the "cornerstone" position.
In early October, the local Eagles group, dissatisfied with the display's current location, asked the city of Kalispell to ask Flathead County to transfer the monuments to the city for placement at Depot Park, a prominent city park.
At that time, one city councilor stated, "[The monument] isn't something we want to hide under a bushel basket." A county commissioner said, "At first blush, I think it is an excellent idea." Even the city attorney chimed in, stating, he had no legal concern at all about moving the monuments to city property.
The Flathead Area Secular Humanist Association quickly responded with "assertive" letters of opposition to the county commissioners, city councilors and major local newspapers, along with organizing an opposition email campaign.
On Oct. 22, the council met to discuss the request. Several people spoke in favor of the transfer. I was the sole public voice of dissent at the meeting, speaking on behalf of FASHA (and the law), emphasizing the city's responsibility to follow the Constitution and to remain neutral when it comes to religion.
Two councilors, while supportive of the request by the Eagles, cited FASHA's opposition letter and legal concerns in deciding against moving forward. Another councilor was strongly opposed, citing the potential for divisiveness in the community.
The mayor, while stating she "believes" in the Ten Commandments, thought the monument should be moved to private land. In the end, the council decided to not pursue the transfer.
This was a huge success for us. Without our opposition, we would likely have had a religious monument in one of our city parks before year's end (and an ensuing legal battle). The city council should be commended, especially given the predominantly conservative community we live in.
We feel fortunate for everyone involved that we were able to address this proactively and will closely monitor city and county meetings in the future to counter any future assaults on the First Amendment.
Montana FFRF member Ian Cameron is founder and administrator of Flathead Area Secular Humanist Association (flatheadsecular.com/).
Teacher, students enlighten public about atheism
As a 30-year veteran public school teacher, I often read horrific stories in Freethought Today about church/state violations in our schools. People at freethought meetings and conventions are always citing school proselytizing as a huge problem, and the public schools absorb the blame for everything that is wrong with our society.
In all my years teaching in three states and three different countries, I have seen little of this type of thing from the inside. In defense of the schools, and more importantly, the students, I want to share some good news about what I have experienced.
Part of the middle school enrichment program that I run involves an annual mock trial contest called Law Adventure, sponsored by the New Jersey Bar Foundation. Each year, students are given the choice of two topics and are asked to create and submit a case brief. Winners are invited to perform their cases in front of a judge and jury in the spring.
In the 2012 contest, one of the topics was First Amendment rights violations. One of my seventh-grade teams was intent on making a case involving religious rights in the schools. I swear on The God Delusion that I did not influence them! Much discussion was held about different religions, current cases in the news and how the school community might respond. The students agreed to move forward.
The case, Singh v. Fair Side School, involved Melodie Singh, a high school honors choir soloist, and her very religious choir teacher. When the choir was invited to compete at a national event, the director chose an overtly religious spiritual for them to perform. Melodie, who was to sing the soloist parts, felt that the teacher knew she was an atheist and thus would opt to sit out for a song that contained words such as "I have surrendered my life to Christ."
In an interesting twist, the students had the director, Jay Tempo, show favoritism for students who attended his church. The full case brief can be found at njsbf.org/educators-and-students/programs/7-8-lawadventure.html under "2012 Law Adventure Mock Trial Exercises."
After we were notified that our case had won an honorable mention, we prepared to take it to the next level. This is where we turned it into a script, choosing parts and performing it for the school and community. Students, staff and parents were impressed with our case, the acting and the impressive award.
Many of them had no idea what an atheist was, but knew that Melodie had clearly been wronged. The student jury decided she'd been discriminated against and found in Melodie's favor. I do acknowledge that many church/state violations occur in schools, and I am appalled that my own union came to the defense of the teacher in the case of Matthew LaClair.
Matthew was a high school junior who was harassed in 2006 after secretly recording his history teacher, who was also a Baptist youth pastor, making over-the-top comments, including warning students that by rejecting God, "you belong in hell." The compelling story is detailed in a documentary titled "In God We Teach."
I like to believe that these situations are less common, and I'm grateful that FFRF and other organizations are involved in this litigation. In my experience, most students, teachers and parents are careful and respectful when discussing religious topics and ideas.
Diane Cormican is a middle school enrichment teacher, FFRF member and president of the Lehigh Valley [Pa.] Humanists.
[Editor's note: Diane's other mock trial team placed first in the competition in a product liability case.]
Religion and hospice: A cautionary experience
In 1939, Vernon L. "Bill" Bowman (left) joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and for the next two years flew fighter missions with the RCAF and the British Royal Air Force. After America's declaration of war, he transferred to the U.S. Army Air Force and was shot down Aug. 23, 1944, then spent nine months in Stalag Luft 1 prison camp in Barth, Germany.
He's pictured late in life with his son, Vice Admiral Michael Bowman, USN, (center), and grandson, Cmdr. Geoffrey Bowman, USN. The photo when published originally was titled "Three Generations of Fly Boys."
"Can you believe they believe this crap?" whispered my beloved, freethinking father. Unfortunately, my father's "whisper" was in fact a deeply resonant voice that rippled through rows of the Methodist church we were attending with my mother, an immensely sweet and deeply religious woman. Worse still, we were in the second row, my mother's favored position.
The minister had just read a particularly ridiculous bible verse that offended my hearing-impaired but whip-smart dad. The minister looked momentarily startled. My mother looked dismayed. I was both amused and proud of my father, who though in his late 80s, sported a clear, highly intelligent mind.
I happily plunked down the modest amount to become a Lifetime Member of FFRF before this year's convention in Portland began, and felt privileged to shake the hand of Annie Laurie Gaylor as I did so. I also thought, "My father would be proud."
Here's why. In 2005, my dad died of lung cancer that metastasized to the spine, and suffered in needless pain due to the "protocol" of the religiously backed hospice we had unwittingly become involved with during the final six weeks of his life. His experience has become my passion.
Hospice is a caring and compassionate approach to death. But beware, freethinkers, not all hospices are created equal. We were automatically "linked" to this particular hospice at the advice of my father's physician, a kind man and a family friend. Connected to the Missouri hospital where my father resided briefly, it seemed sensible to simply enroll with the recommended hospice when the end was near.
The problems began almost immediately. When the hospice case manager showed up at our home to enroll my father, she said, "Our chaplain will be happy to meet with you," to which he responded, "No preachers." The case manager persisted, "We ask only that he visit one time." My dad's response? "I don't believe you heard me correctly — no preachers or no hospice."
The woman was clearly taken aback, but duly marked the form "no spiritual support requested."
Unfortunately, we found that the hospice workers assigned to my father's case simply could not park their religion at the door. His pain was severe; he was 89 years old and quite pragmatically and emotionally ready to leave this particular veil of tears.
Nonetheless, when he asked, "I know you may not be able to answer this question, but based on my vital signs and the progression of my disease, can you give me a sense of how long I have?" the response was, "When the sweet Lord calls you home."
My father was dismayed. I was furious. I met with the case manager outside our home and said, "If you do not observe my father's wishes, we will find a different hospice."
'I'm not Dr. Kevorkian'
This hospice refused to give my father anything other than liquid morphine to control his pain, when a PCA (patient controlled analgesia) pump was clearly required. Their emphasis was on "keeping the patient conscious so that he can interact with loved ones." I finally insisted that he be admitted to the hospital, where pain doctors immediately installed a pump.
But that's not the end to this sad tale. In the last week of his life, when he had been transferred to a skilled nursing facility where PCA pumps were not allowed, my father asked to be placed in a deep state of unconsciousness, as much as permissible within the law. During overnight vigils, it was clear to me that the hospice organization, still in charge of his care, was not adequately controlling his pain.
I confronted the hospice doctor, who actually said to me, "This is not Oregon and I am not Dr. Kevorkian." My reply? "Unless you follow my father's written and signed wishes, my next call will be to an attorney."
That comment suddenly spurred action that allowed my dad to die pain-free.
After his death, I was on a mission. I contacted the state licensing board in charge of hospice organizations throughout Missouri. I sent a detailed list of the occurrences — ways in which this facility had violated the concepts of the national hospice organization. Their response was swift. They flew a team of auditors to St. Joseph from Jefferson City and carried out an unannounced audit.
They pulled files of three patients (in an attempt to protect the anonymity of the complainant, though I'm sure said complainant was obvious.) The result? The hospice organization was cited on multiple counts and given three months to clean up its act or be closed. (It is still in operation and apparently in accord with national hospice concepts, which I am glad to know.)
One other vital point: I conferred with a doctor of mine who was on the board of Stanford Medical Center in California before taking action. He said to me, "Susan, it is vital that you pursue this case. The Religious Right are having an increasing impact on pain control of dying patients in this country."
My mission now is to warn all who are considering hospice care themselves or on behalf of a loved one to carefully vet all hospice organizations in your area. You must ensure that their approach is medically sound, that they are sufficiently staffed, and, most important, that they are willing to conform to those of us who wish to die without God and also without pain.
My allegiance and respect are absolute for FFRF and its work to keep church and state separate. My decision to join as a Lifetime Member is a great privilege. I hope my experience can help inform and assist other members.
Susan Fallon McCann lives in Fountain Hills, Ariz., where she is a business management and communications professional.
Wisconsin brothers get religious football logo removed
FFRF has awarded Mayan and Balen Essak each $1,000 student activist awards. Freethought activism runs in the family (see sidebar).
For several years, our Wisconsin public high school's football team has partnered with a private, Catholic high school to create a competitive team. For years, the team's logo was a simple MS, combining our schools' first initials.
Last year, our graphic arts program assigned students a project to create a new logo, combining our high school's logo, a greyhound, with the private school's logo, a Catholic bishop's hat with a cross on it. The winning design would replace the old logo. After passing through the football coach, principal and many other school authorities, a design that cleverly combined the logos was chosen and printed on decals for helmets.
For most of the season, the cross-bearing helmets went unbeknownst to us until the school newspaper printed an article about them with a few weeks left in the season. Publication of the situation prompted an immediate response.
The day the paper came out, one of us, along with some other upset peers, brought it to the assistant principal's attention that we were unhappy with a religious symbol representing our football team and public school. We felt that it was unfair to force people to wear a cross on their heads if they wanted to play football. It was a clear issue of separating church and state.
We brought it to the attention of our parents as well, who, that night, emailed the school board and principal explaining that without swift action, we would be contacting the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
At the school board meeting that one of us attended, the board acknowledged our request. They all had been unaware of the new logo and voted unanimously and with minimal discussion to remove the decals as quickly as possible.
Taking responsibility for the mistake, the principal apologized and had the decals removed before the next game. Unfortunately, many people were unhappy with the decision. One school board member received many emails and phone calls from disapproving citizens across the nation, but there were many local protesters, too.
We had to explain countless times to oblivious peers why having a cross on a public school's football helmet isn't acceptable. Many felt that since a private school was involved, they should be allowed to have their symbol represented on the team's logo.
They couldn't understand that when a private school partners with a public school, they need to follow the public school's rules. Students at the private school may have signed up to be represented by a cross, but anyone attending a public school can expect complete freedom from religion in all representations of their school and all school-sponsored activities.
Another common complaint was that since we weren't football players, and because we weren't actually wearing the cross, we weren't directly affected by the logo and shouldn't care or make such a big deal about it.
On the contrary, it did directly affect us. At every single football game our team had played so far this season, people saw our football team associated with Christianity. People seeing our school as a Christianity-endorsing institution doesn't just affect the football players. It affects anyone associated with our school district.
Just because we're not football players doesn't change the morality of the situation. In the theoretical but entirely possible situation that we wanted to play football, we should not be forced to wear a cross on our heads. The helmet logo was morally and legally wrong; whether or not we play football doesn't change that.
Some other arguments were even more outlandish. This was one of the emails a school board member received: "Everyone wonders why America is in decline. The answer is simple, our country was founded with Christian values . . . and every time we disavow his image or the cross we are a little less blessed each day. . . . I don't know what your religious affiliation is, but if you are a Christian . . . think about putting God ahead of your job and political motivations. . . If they don't like it, tell them to go to another school . . . If you are a liberal, you won't understand me."
Obviously, America was not founded on Christian values but on moral principles, which contradict this point of view. Another email received in response to the decision stated, "This has nothing whatsoever to do with separation of church and state and you know it. What it shows is that today's society is determined to shield this generation from Christianity and remove all mention of God from our lives. Our great country was founded on the belief of personal and religious freedoms and you have now done your part to squash that freedom."
Actually, it did have to do with separation of church and state. Also, not forcing Christianity upon others seems more like freedom from religion than the freedom suggested in this email.
To us, this issue seems absolutely self-evident. By separation of church and state, it is unacceptable to place any religious symbols on a public school's uniforms. How so many people are naïve about this idea is bewildering to us. Working to remove the cross from our school's helmets was a rewarding experience, but also an eye-opening one.
Sadly, far more people than we had ever imagined are completely oblivious to religious symbols in public settings and are too ignorant to other points of view to understand why the cross had to be removed. Hopefully, this has been a learning experience for all.
We just hope that if a situation like this arises, and we aren't there to fight for our freedom from religion, someone else will.
Jennifer and Sam Essak (at right), parents of Mayan and Balen, as state employees were among the victorious plaintiffs in FFRF's lawsuit declaring unconstitutional Wisconsin's Good Friday holiday in 1996. "We're thrilled to see two generations of commitment to the First Amendment in the Essak family," said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. Also pictured by the Robert La Follette bust in the Wisconsin Capitol in 1996 were Good Friday plaintiffs (left) Dan Barker, Michael Hakeem, Richard Uttke and Annie Laurie and Anne Gaylor.
One nation under God — not!
This column originally was published on Huffington Post and appears here with the author's permission.
At the Republican National Convention, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was loud and clear: What makes us Americans is our shared belief in God. That's it, above all else. Forget adherence to the Constitution, forget a hatred of tyranny, forget a love for baseball. Forget watching reality TV while ingesting a double cheeseburger, large nachos and a 32-ounce orange soda.
No, what binds Americans together is, according to this Christian politician, theism.
As Rubio proclaimed: "We are special because we're united not by a common race or ethnicity. We're bound together by common values . . . that almighty God is the source of all we have." And furthermore: "Faith in our Creator is the most important American value of all."
Rubio's wrong. There are countless values that are far more important than having faith in an invisible, invertebrate, unknowable deity. Valuing education, for example. Valuing democracy. Valuing human rights. Valuing free speech. Valuing trees, mountains, valleys, lakes, rivers and the ozone layer. Valuing affordable health care. Valuing nutritious school lunches. Valuing one's spouse, one's friends, one's neighbors. It is far more important to value and love one another, and to act on that love, than to have faith in a god.
Rubio is also wrong about something else: Faith in God is not shared by all Americans. In fact, millions of hardworking, child-raising, military-joining, coal-mining and liberty-loving Americans live their lives without faith in God. Millions more live their lives without any interest in religion whatsoever. The statistics are surprisingly clear on this front.
In the 1990s, about 8% of Americans claimed "none" as their religion. Then, in 2007, the Pew Forum found that the percentage of nonreligious Americans had doubled to 16%. In 2010, Putnam and Campbell's national survey put the percentage at 17%. In 2011, the General Social Survey reported it at 18%. This year, the Pew Forum bumped it up to 19%. (Anyone see a pattern here?)
Then, according to the 2012 WIN-Gallup International "Global Index of Religion and Atheism," a whopping 30% of Americans describe themselves as nonreligious. So whether we're talking 16 or 19 or 30%, we're talking tens of millions of Americans who are more secular than not.
Of course, not all Americans who claim to be nonreligious are atheists or agnostics, but a very significant proportion are. In fact, according to the most recent American Religious Identification Survey, of those Americans who self-identify as nonreligious, about half are atheist or agnostic. Another 23% believe in a higher power but not a personal God. Only 21% are firm God-believers.
What's really un-American
Now, maybe there is a god. Maybe there isn't. Maybe there is a heaven. Maybe there isn't. Maybe the precious, red blood of Jesus saves us from our sins. Maybe it doesn't. But the answers to these questions, whatever they may be, are not what defines us as Americans, or as citizens, or as humans.
And to suggest that to be a good, decent American requires faith in a Creator, or to imply that Christian values are the only values, or to argue that our laws are given to us solely by God, or to constantly denigrate nonbelievers as somehow less-than-welcome partners in the American enterprise — well, that's all, quite frankly, very un-American.
After all, the brilliant founders of this nation made their vision quite clear, as they proclaimed in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797: "The government of the United States of Americas is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate, only the third such unanimous vote in the Senate out of 339 votes that had taken place up to that time.
And, the writers of our Constitution left God out of the entire body of that foundational, brilliant and oh-so-secular document.
Marco Rubio should know all of this. Perhaps he does. But heck, to Rubio, faith in his deity is clearly of greater value than historical accuracy or embracing all Americans regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. He said so himself.
Phil Zuckerman, professor of sociology at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., is an FFRF member and a leading authority on how secular societies measure up favorably to theocratic ones.
FFRF covers Portland with cheery atheist/secular messages
The Freedom From Religion Foundation erected 15 billboard messages in Portland, Ore., in mid-October featuring Portland members to coincide with the 35th national FFRF convention there Oct. 12-14. Helping to celebrate the occasion were about 15 Portland-area FFRF members or families who volunteered to appear on a set of myth-dispelling billboards.
FFRF launched its largest "This is what an atheist looks like" campaign to date in Portland, also debuting a new slogan, "I'm SECULAR and I VOTE." FFRF leased three 14x48-foot bulletins and 12 EcoPosters (10-foot by 23-inch signs), which appeared in a variety of locations.
"We were pleasantly surprised but sorry we had more volunteers than we could manage to use in the campaign. We wish we hadn't had to turn anyone away," said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "The definitive American Religious Identification Survey shows that 24% of Oregonians identify as nonreligious, so FFRF'ers have plenty of good company. FFRF sends special thanks to Life Member Steve Eltinge, for taking the professional photographs, and to all participants for making the campaign possible."
Michelle and Justin Atterbury were pictured on a magenta billboard saying, "This is what an atheist family looks like," with their toddler, Sylvan, and baby, Scarlett. Also on a bulletin with this message were Roy Firestone, an engineer, and Karen Firestone, a Portland homemaker. Another couple, Heather Gonsior, drafter, and Shawn Swagerty, information systems director, appeared on a similar billboard.
Appealing brothers Brent Mangum, a chemist and OSU tutor, and Tyler, a physiologist, were pictured back-to-back on a blue "This is what atheists look like" billboard.
Other "This is what an atheist looks like" participants were Anita Brown, whose exotic cat, Wheely, also makes an appearance; Sonja Maglothin, an income auditor; Mark Hecate, a member of FFRF who is IT director at New Avenues for Youth; and Scott Mullin, a filmmaker in Portland.
Featured on a bright-blue billboard was Peter Boghossian, a well-known philosophy instructor at Portland State University, who has an upcoming book and spoke at the FFRF conference. Renee Barnett, who is a teaching assistant in Boghossian's class on atheism, also appeared on a billboard.
With the election so close to FFRF's conference, which attracted nearly 900 people from 43 states, two Canadian provinces and six nations, FFRF unveiled a timely billboard slogan, "I'm SECULAR and I VOTE." The red, white and blue billboards featured the smiling faces of retired Portland teacher Lenora Warren; retired engineer Duane Damiano, a Life Member; retired politician and novelist Caroline Miller; and retirees Paul Buchman and Marsha Abelman.
Secular vote
swayed election?
FFRF issued a preconvention press release about the billboards asking, "With up to 19% of the U.S. population now identifying as nonreligious, when are politicians and candidates going to wake up to the changing demographics and start courting us?"
Exit polls bore out FFRF's contention that the secular vote can sway the election. Exit polls found that 70% of seculars went for Obama. About 62% of those who never attend church voted for Obama. Obama also won the vote for those who attend only monthly or less. Of those who attend church weekly or more, 59% went for Romney.
According to Pew, Catholics made up a quarter of voters, Protestants 53%, Jews 2%, Muslims and other non-Christian faiths 7% and religiously unaffiliated 12% of the electorate.
The Catholic bishops' campaign against Obamacare's contraceptive mandate dented Catholic support for Obama, which went from 54% in 2008 to 50% in 2012 (48% voted for Romney this year).
White Catholic support for Obama dropped from 47% in 2008 to 40% in 2012. It was the Hispanic Catholics who buoyed the Obama vote at 75%, higher even than the secular vote. Fully 57% of the white Protestant vote went to Romney; 79% of white born-again evangelicals voted for Romney, while 95% of black Protestants went for Obama.
See the billboards
To read Annie Laurie Gaylor's blog, "The Nones have it," and learn more about the secular vote, go to ffrf.org/news/blog/ and scroll to Nov. 12, 2012.
FFRF contests prayer breakfast involvement
FFRF sent a letter of complaint Nov. 13 in advance of a Mayor's Prayer Breakfast to Mayor J. Michael Houston in Springfield, Ill., over illegal city involvement. FFRF, a national nonprofit with over 19,000 members, has 675 members in Illinois.
"Our complainant informs us that this religious event is promoted on the official website for the city of Springfield," wrote Rebecca Markert, senior staff attorney. The Web page lists the main telephone number for the Springfield Department of Community Relations, a city office, as the contact number for the event.
"[I]t is grossly illegal and inappropriate for the city to be hosting, organizing, supporting or otherwise promoting a patently religious event, such as a prayer breakfast," Markert added. "This practice, which has been recurring for the last 17 years, certainly has the effect of government endorsement of religion."
FFRF cited legal precedent barring direct government involvement in such events. "The Department of Community Relations is inappropriately handling ticket sales for this religious event. It is of no consequence that the breakfast will take place on private property."
It also appears that Houston, a retired banker, helped to sponsor and attended the event in his official mayoral capacity.
"We ask that you take immediate steps to remedy the serious violations of the Establishment Clause that the city's involvement in the prayer breakfast presents," wrote Markert. She sent a separate letter containing an open records request on the city's involvement.
Catholic Church's heavy hand weighs down Philippines
Above, a photo of Filipinos living in festering slums in Manila, snapped last spring by FFRF Co-President Dan Barker while on a tour of the Philippine capital as part of an atheist conference. Many families live in the huge dump.
FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor recently blogged about the longstanding opposition of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines to a bill which would provide contraception and require sex education.
The New York Times (Nov. 10), reporting on new interest in the bill, quoted Jose Palma, Catholic Conference president, insisting that "a positive birthrate and a population composed of mostly young people … fuel the economy."
The story quoted Dr. Esmeraldo Ilem: "Family planning in the Philippines is not about population control. It is a health intervention. We are focusing on women who are too young, too old, too poor or too sick to have babies, but their situation does not allow them to stop."
The birthrate in the Catholic Philippines is 24.98 out of 1,000 (compared to 13.7 in the United States).
"The Catholic Church has much to answer for," Gaylor wrote. Read the entire blog at ffrf.org/news/blog/ (scroll to Nov. 13, 2012).
Don't want to wait for the next issue of Freethought Today for updates on FFRF news and actions? Members may sign up to have news releases, action alerts, blogs or Freethought of the Day (a daily biographical calendar of quotes) delivered to your inbox.
Simply select these options at your new Membership Profile. (Click on "login" at the upper right-hand corner of ffrf.org/ to begin. If we have your email on file, we emailed you instructions on registering and your Membership ID number in November.)
Still need your Membership ID number or help? Email . Instructions are also available by clicking "login" at ffrf.org/.
Supreme Court turns down Spartanburg cert: A loss for reason
The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 13 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and its co-plaintiffs, asking the court to rule against academic credit for release-time instruction in Spartanburg (S.C.) public schools.
The petition, filed by attorney George Daly of North Carolina, opposed this "delegation of governmental power to a religious school" as "an excessive entanglement of church and state" prohibited under court precedent.
The U.S. Supreme Court approved release-time instruction in the 1952 case, Zorack v. Clauson, allowing religious instructors to offer off-campus religious instruction once a week during the school day to willing public school students, provided there is no school district involvement.
"When the Supreme Court, I think misguidedly, approved release-time instruction, I feel sure the court never envisioned such students receiving academic credit for indoctrination," said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.
"Accepting and passing on a grade for devotional religious instruction involves substantial school involvement. It grants an unfair advantage to students belonging to the community's dominant religion, who can put on such instruction, and places nonreligious students at an academic disadvantage as well. What next? Students demanding extra credit because they've attended Sunday school?"
The facts involved a program at Spartanburg High School put on by an unaccredited bible school in a church next door to the high school. At the semester's end, the bible school sent grades to the accredited Oakbrook Preparatory School. Without review, Oakbrook approved the grades and passed them on to the high school. The high school accepted the grades for academic credit without question, allowing up to two credits. There was no involvement by an accrediting agency over the course work.
"Respondent has granted to a religious institution the governmental power to decide whether a course of religious instruction qualifies for public school academic credit, without any assurance that the religious institution will decide the matter on secular grounds only. The district testified that if Oakbrook grants academic credit for a course entitled Laboratory for Intercessory Prayer, it would accept the credit. Bar Mitzvah training and Mass qualify for academic credit, if Oakbrook says so," wrote Daly in the petition.
He called it a delegation of governmental power to a religious group forbidden under Larkin v. Grendel's Den (1982).
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2009. The petition was filed on Oct. 2. (To read the legal petition, visit ffrf.org/news/ and scroll to Nov. 13, 2012.)
FFRF thanks its local plaintiffs, Robert and Melissa Moss, FFRF member Ellen Tillett and George Daly, acting pro bono as attorney. Thanks also to Staff Attorney Patrick Elliott for his work on the case.
Member reminds school of Constitution
"Memorial" crosses were planted outside the lunchroom at Cedar Key School. Cedar Key is an island on the Gulf Coast 50 miles southwest of Gainesville, Fla.
Florida member Ben Wilson writes to say it paid to complain about a constitutional violation at his children's K-12 school in Levy County:
I'm so happy this morning. Yesterday afternoon I noticed that the school had a plethora of miniature white crosses at the entrance to the lunchroom. Surrounding the crosses was police tape, which I immediately assumed was a statement about abortion.
I took my children to school this morning and stayed until the principal showed up. I asked him about the crosses. He said he didn't know what they were for but said he would check. I explained that it would be a violation regardless of the motive(s). He was dismissive and walked off.
Ten minutes later, he called me and stated that the crosses were not an abortion statement but were meant to symbolize the deaths from cancer in our county. He then said, "So that would be OK, Mr. Wilson, right?"
I explained to him that as I previously stated, having the crosses on school grounds was not legal, regardless of their intended message. I explained that latin crosses symbolize Christianity.
They are "only there to represent the deaths," he said. I answered, "But you are symbolizing the deaths with Christian symbols. Were all those who died Christian?"
"Mr. Wilson, I'll remove them if they offend you. Is that what you want?" I said, "Yes, not just because it offends me but to protect children and to uphold the Constitution."
Minutes later, I drove by and the crosses and tape had been removed.
What little tactical skills I have to counter these abuses have come from what I've learned from FFRF, its newspaper, its updates and Action Alerts. Thank you all for doing what you do.
[Update, a week later]: Today I called the principal about another violation with the science teacher. This is the third time I've complained about his incessant pandering to Jesus.


text:
- Mark Hurych
- El Centro, CA
- United States
This conversation is closed.
Imagine a scenario this century that is very bleak for agriculture. What do you think we should do to address humanity's thrivability?
Suppose two things:
Suppose that the food producing carrying capacity (the number of people that can be fed from arable land) of the Earth within this century becomes less than one billion due to climate change, what do you think we should do to address thrivability? Suppose that you had all the necessary resources to act. For full credit, apply empathy, logic, and self-integrating system properties. Yes, this might be on the final exam.
Jeremy Rifkin,
Paul Gilding,
Ray Kurzweil,
Michelle Holliday,
Closing Statement from Mark Hurych
Thanks to everyone that participated. I apologize to anyone who might have felt slighted.
The answer I got here is that people are on many different islands of being about humanity's current reality. We all have hopes and fears but our paradigms I've found are unexpectedly different. Our perspectives and priorities sometimes don't even seem to have common ground.
I very much want to find that common ground, across cultures, across the globe, across everything that separates and isolates us. One way I plan to address this yearning is by tuning my questions to be more inclusive and collective.
I feel that art does this, pulls us together and gives us common ground, even across language barriers and across time. I want to be good. This sounds so strange but I want to be a good ancestor. I don't see myself as an artist but I would very much like to do something for the greater good the way a composer or an artist might leave behind an inspiring artifact.
Lejan .
Dec 29 2012: I found this BBC documentary by Rebecca Hosking quite alarming and she did change my view on the future of our current food production:
- +2
A Farm For The Future
Dec 29 2012: Thanks for your input. (I'll dig up an extra credit question about boundary conditions where you get to answer, "Well, isn't that obvious.") I will look into your "A Farm For The Future" source. I wonder how many people have seen the "Meatrix" video. Funny and informative.Dec 30 2012: OMG, Lejan. Spot on. Cool. Far out. Yes. The clip and ideas promoted i it are the basis for Permaculture and other practices of horticulture that are designed to promote life and diversity in the soil, thereby building natural capital. I'm going to follow up on the references and links associated with BBC clip, On the downside, uh, it wasn't that obvious. Not really.
Lejan .
Dec 31 2012: Hi Mark,
- +1
it wasn't that obvious to me either before I stumbled across Rebecca Hosking. Actually I was surprised that I did not see this dangerous connection between fossil fuels and food production before her documentary by myself, so I was speechless in more than just one aspect of her story...
There is another interesting BBC documentary about agriculture, actually ancient agriculture and what we could learn from it. It is about 'Terra preta' or 'black soil' which was found in the Amazonian area as silent relicts of a once flourishing indigenous society:
This video gets a bit slowly to the point and consist out of two parts with a pause in between. At time 49:16 the second part begins and 'dives' much deeper into the topic, whereas the first part focus more on the historical context.
As you seem to be interested in agriculture and in case you have not heard about 'Tera preta' before, this might give you some additional ideas, especially as it is quite compatible with the presented solutions by Rebecca Hosking.
Wikipedia gives some additional information about it:
I found the 'Meatrix' video some while ago and I think it is a good way to make some people understand what they are eating. As I grew up in a quite sensitive environment on this topic, the video didn't tell me anything new, yet many people may get to think a bit deeper into it and hopefully act upon it in making their choices...
Rai Requena
Dec 29 2012: When things get bleak people tend to individualize. For example; in WW II families grew thier own small garden plots. Then they would share/trade with neighbors. They would give it other advise on how to make things last longer and nothing was wasted. It's survival and respect for each other at its best.
- +1
Dec 31 2012: Before things actually get bleak but while the predictions are considered as a possibility, what would you do to avert them? Would you grow a garden for food? Would you promote this idea? What other ideas do you have?
Jan 2 2013: Yes, incourage the growing of food. Also, since the 1920's food distribution has always been a problem. We grow and throwaway more food then we can consume, even today. So, this needs to be addressed. Some mentioned that it takes time to grow food, but many plants that are out there have never been used for human consumsion (sic). I have traveled the world and believe me cultural differences has created various appetites for unusual items. For example; grubs, insects, certain grasses and plants such as dandilion (in your own back yard). People will find and eat things they never would have thought about. History has proven that.
Dan F
Dec 29 2012: The cause of this problem wouldn't matter, nor would anyone care. The break point which could cause this dire situation would trump everything.
- +1
Imagine the information age world is going from seven billion plus toward one billion people on a downhill slide.
A situation that would result in this kind of drastic reduction in human population numbers would appear to be the end of the world. Cooperative behavior would not disappear, but would likely give away to our more cunning and aggressive side in the battle to survive.
Spaceship earth could take on a new reality none of us would want to contemplate. Individual or group efforts no matter how thoughtfully considered and employed to restore faith would go unnoticed. Just maintaining basic law and order could be impossible in some areas as gangs go wild in the cities creating their own new world order.
Food and ammunition would disappear from retail outlets as people would grab what they could despite efforts to lessen the panic. Businesses would likely disappear to black markets and barter systems. Who knows what would happen nationally.
At the very least, or perhaps best, much of the world would be under emergency rule to maintain as much order as possible to weather the crisis. It well may be our best hope to recapture a retrievable stable human niche and retain some civility in the process.
I hope I didn't sound to negative - this is just a theoretical exercise, right?
Dec 31 2012: "The cause of this problem wouldn't matter, nor would anyone care." I care. As well, I think that the ONLY way to address any problem is by understanding what it is and what its causes are. I do not like contemplating gloomy scenarios as they might play out. However, I do want to anticipate that we can alter the outcomes.
Dan F
Jan 1 2013: Hi Mark,
- 0
Incidentally, I care too, otherwise I wouldn't be so active on TED. I share your concern about our well being on spaceship earth. Keep up the good work.
My preferred approach to our existing and pending environmental problems is best addressed by cutting tax deductions for those having children. Also the efforts to assist family planning to avoid unwanted pregnancies is important. I liked what Melinda Gates in her TED Talk had to say on this subject.
I see this as more an issue of idealism than education. I think the world is grossly overpopulated and we are paying an accelerating negative environmental price for that reality.
On the other hand, it is likely we could continue to sustain more and more people by the talents and application of our education systems. For example, we can genetically modify fish, plants, etc., to be larger to better feed the multitudes despite the harm to wild fisheries, native plants, etc. Engineers can mitigate global warming by doing - who knows what. And on and on it goes. All the while talk show radio will explain to the masses why these commercial operations are a godsend.
I am not a purist. I appreciate technology, economics, politics, etc., but I don't worship these things.
Lejan .
Dec 29 2012: Well, isn't that obvious?
- +1
Ok, I have to admit that the worst grades I ever got started with exactly this phrase, yet I do not claim to be capable of learning ... :o)
So let's see what's left in my 'memory box' about nature and eco-systems in general and to take those fragments to hopefully get another 'just passed' in my long, long row of all the others ...
Nature has no favorite species, and the 'battle of life' no final and lasting winner - and this probably nowhere in this Universe. Yet back and 'down to earth'...
The thriving of any species is strictly tight to a basic set of constant and dynamic boundary conditions, which are undeniable, indisputable and 'value-free' in their intrinsic nature and given by 'nature' herself.
As a whole, the Eco-sphere is a constantly changing and dynamic equilibrium, equipped with several latency buffers for 'cause & effect' events as well as 'real time' consequences. As there is no favorable state of this dynamic equilibrium to be in, seen from nature herself, the survival of any species comes without any guarantee...
In the given scenario, the ' food producing carrying capacity' will dynamically influence the 'number of people' who will be able to survive on it and as 'we' are less likely to accept close people to die of starvation, we would do better to adjust 'our' population on purpose and 'in advance' to the given capacity, to avoid any further and tragic widespread deaths, which was the 'intro' of this scenario anyway and would therefore be a 'landmark' within the collective memory of those surviving it ...
The number of the population + a safety margin for poor harvests, would be determined by an average 'output' of a biological and 'closed-cycled' agriculture, in which no dependency on limited resources would add another risk for a another and worldwide food shortage.
A sustainable population of our species, would probably be found by iteration, as the complexity of the whole system is beyond our understanding.Dec 27 2012: My assertion is that we are already playing some kind of Russian roulette with our planet. I'm not content with any one answer unless it fundamentally eliminates the danger. Even one "bullet" is one too many. It's been said already that the harmful change of our air and climate will continue for some time even if we completely stopped emitting CO2 now. All answers and all people must work together. We must all put on our thinking caps as inhabitants of our one and only home planet. No one person can break this bundle of sticks problem but by sharing the effort it is a snap. Seven billion human brothers and sisters can and should be involved. How creative and effective we could be by making this effort together.
Dec 28 2012: Never before did so little people die from violence, hunger and extreme weather events (procentually, worldwide), never did we live so long and healthy lives, twice as long as in the beginning of the 20th century (which is true for almost any country, bar Zimbabwe and North Korea), never did we produce so much food and energy per capita. Never before could half of the world population be considered middle class, as is now.
Deforestation is declining, rapidly, worldwide. In de developed world forests are increasing, the UK has more forest now than in any time in the past 500 years, air and water quality are improving in the west, animals (wolfs, bears, whales, storks, beavers etc) are returning. And renewable energy is the fastest growing energy source in the world.
Far from accidently destroying ourselves, the Earth we are molding to fit our needs is proving to be increasingly kind to us.
Dec 28 2012: Here is the comment on Mr. Spectors talk I cited earlier.
Dec 18 2012: Genetically modified food is a great idea, it's the Monsanto's of the world that are effing things up! When upwards of 90% of the genetically modified food in NA is modified to be herbicide resistant it's a gross misuse of the technology! I can't even begin to get into the problems these crops are creating for the ecosystems they are planted in to the tactics of Monsanto and the ownership of the crops. I had many problems with this talk, Dr. Paul Kratka eloquently mentions some of them below. If I didn't know better I would think that someone was paying Mr. Specter for these comments!?!
Dec 28 2012: About Specter, don't vilify a man only because he has a different opinion.
If you don't believe him, maybe you'll have trust in the opinion of eco hero Stewart Brand:
Whom changed his opinion on GMO based on a rethink of the available facts.Dec 28 2012: No vilification is intended here. I just mean to say that SOME GM does harm instead of good in the long run, in terms of questionable safety or depleted natural capital.Dec 28 2012: I agree with you. It's very hard to believe we're commiting several kinds of harmful actions against the beautiful and nice blue planet that it's our Home. We must bue more conscious and respectful for our Home. (sorry for my bad English). I'd like to encourage everybody for caring better that wonderful Home.
Dec 29 2012: Thank you for your participation, and for struggling past English grammar. This nice blue planet is called Earth but I often wonder why we don't call it Ocean.
Creo que nuestros esfuerzos deben de involucrar cada ser humano en el sentido de que nos damos cuenta que este es nuestro planeta, nuestro hogar, y somos familia. Civizacion de empatia se llama. Creo que es un buen idea. mil gracias
Dec 29 2012: Yes, I really think so. Sometimes giving a walk by the sea side, enjoying the wonderful sun we can see here in Spain, it's easy to feel oneself like (only a) part of this complex world and then, at the same time, you can feel that nobody has the right for damaging it anyway, and we all have the obligation for caring it. It's not our private property, it's also of the animals, plants... One ought to feel guilty making something harmful against the environment.
Oh, your Spanish is very good. Congratulations.Dec 31 2012: The first thing needing attention is the ?50% or so who don't really care. They have to purpose or meaning in their lives, no goals, and no prevalent system of values to encourage them to modify their behavior. Our governments and institutions have proven themselves impotent and slovenly; if it's every one for him or her self why bother? The first thing WE need to do is stop voting, stop shopping and give God a little CPR!
Dec 31 2012: Enter "Empathic Civilization" with its inclusion and openness. Movements in this direction tend to be lateral instead of vertical. Viral spread of an idea (meme) is more powerful in the long run because it is making management teams obsolete.Dec 26 2012: Everything does not depend upon money.
People have been brainwashed into thinking it does.
Money does nothing. Nothing costs money.
Everything costs people. It's people who do things, not money.
Changing that thinking paradigm might help because everyone knows this or can quickly know it when it becomes more common place to believe and speak in this way.
Global warming probably cannot be stopped unless we humans simply stop. Stop doing what we are doing and realize what is really important. But we keep thinking we must continue doing what we are doing which is what has caused all this to begin with. For instance, if we cleaned up the oceans, but stopped fishing completely for 10 years and we also stopped any and all activity in and on the oceans, they might just heal themselves. We cannot heal them. We can only clean our garbage up. We could work en masse to begin cleaning up the planet for those who will or might survive.
What is important is our survival, meaning everyone, as much as is possible. That requires helping one another to survive rather than competing as we have been trained into doing, and realizing all that we don't need - we don't need.
Survival is a sharp enough edge to cut away all the B.S. we have bought into and "bought" is the apropo word.
Buying is consuming. It isn't managing, it isn't economy, meaning economizing, meaning eliminating waste.
That right there is a huge change in thinking and that is where it has to begin.
The juggernaut of our demise needs to be stopped now but regarding my ocean idea, many will say, "You can't just stop fishing or using the oceans! That's ridiculous!" Is it? No, it isn't. If we don't stop, everything will stop. It's really simple.
Things don't "get done" because of money.
Things "don't get done" because of money.
Taking the management of resources out of the hands of those who misuse and mismanage them for money (profit)
would be a great start
The resources of the earth belong to everyone, not to any "one".
Dec 27 2012: Simply stop. Yes, that's true. The rest of the biota would thrive without us. Yet we have done the calculation that one tenth of one percent of the sun's energy that hits our planet would be enough for everyone's energy needs. Solar energy is a good replacement for hydrocarbons. A world wide grid is possible and a practical solution for dayside Earth to share with nightside Earth. No fish zones on 20 to 50% of the continental shelf oceans would return most fish populations within 15 years. Solar powered desalinization plants could generate fresh water. Biochar soil enrichment could allow food crop production with a negative carbon footprint. Mycelium cultivation could remediate the biodiversity of old growth forests. Alternate currencies and economies could make every human rich immediately. Urban planning for density could bring population down. Online systems for global thrivability could test, store, and communicate the best ideas.Dec 27 2012: Stopping won't do, calculations by the IPCC show that even if we would not emit any CO2 from now on, climates would still change dramatically.
We should do quite the opposite, we should assume full responsibility. Embrace all technological options, go into geo engineering.
We are as Gods, and have to get good at it - Stewart Brand
And everybody knows it's about people, money is just an inventive mechanism to put value on people. 70% of the money spent by an average company, goes to wages.
And considering that on a free market the price of anything is determined by supply and demand, the fact that nothing has gotten so expensive as people, means that people are more scarce and more valued than ever.
Dec 31 2012: If we are as gods, then stopping and reversing CO2 venting seems to be one legitimate way to address the climate crisis. I look to the collective will of people, rather than coercive policy.
W. Ying
Dec 24 2012: I believe:
- +1
To really thrive, we should make clear which the goal of our life is:
(1) To keep our DNA alive?
(2) To make money?
To do (1), we can save about 90% of our resources and energy.
To do (2), we can never be satisfied and will certainly go to SELF-EXTINCTION.
(For SELF-EXTINCTION, see the 1st article, points 1-3, 14, at https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D&id=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D%21283&sc=documents)
Dec 25 2012: DNA, Mr. W. Ying.
幸福人生 = Happiness in life
There is an idea that this is relatively easy to attain. I feel that this is true and an important insight for individual persons. I mean thriving as the opposite of sickly or frail. "Thrivability" is a newer word, its implications are that "sustainability" is too weak or not really inclusive enough. So when I hear about sustainability I think about babies' health. Somehow just sustaining life doesn't seem adequate.
W. Ying
Dec 26 2012: Yes!
- 0
I love your creation of "thrivability" very much because it lets me feel happy and safe.
I hate the word "sustainability", which makes me nervous.
Thanks!Jan 6 2013: Climate Crisis Metaphor
Any conceptual aid may be misleading in some ways and helpful in other ways. I hope to bring out some helpful aspects here.
A sinking house-boat is my model for the climate crisis. We are all in the same boat. Some of us become concerned about keeping our reserved seat and changing our socks to keep our feet dry (rebuild after Sandy or Katrina). Some of us want to distract ourselves to feel better, to sing songs and hold hands (environmentalists who quit, political leaders distracting constituents). Some of us spread the word about bailing (educators/bloggers). Some speculate about what tipping points will or won't do (climate model scientists). agricultural revolutionaries (Permaculture, mega-gardening, hydroponics, agro-forestry)
Some search inner space, some look to outer space.Jan 3 2013: How about "Contraction and Convergence" or equalizing and minimizing a carbon allotment for each human on the planet...
Any opinions?
Jan 4 2013: It is very hard to imagine that minimizing our per capita carbon output would be optimal for our well being.Jan 5 2013: C&C [or "Contraction and Convergence"] is one part of an integrated four part concept-constitution.
The first 'domain' of this is 'Contraction and Concentrations'. Here, simply put, the question is what global total of future emissions is consistent with a safe and stable concentration outcome and thus achieving compliance with the objective of the UN Climate Treaty [UNFCCC].
Then - Domain two "Contraction and Convergence" and domain three "Contraction and Conversion" options are computed as a function of the result obtained in the first domain calculation.
The overall result is then tested against Domain four "Damages and Growth". This means the whole exercise is about "Precaution" and "Prevention" and analysing to ensure that we are 'doing enough soon enough' to make it worth the effort [as doing too little too late is obviously not].
What is optimal is achieving UNFCCC-compliance.
What is not optimal or ever going to be, is continually trying to achieve UNFCCC-compliance based on keeping the cart of growth in front of the horse or prevention, as a way of sustaining confusion and indecision by provoking conflicting ideological opinions about urgency and equity.
http://www.gci.org.uk/CBAT.htmlJan 2 2013: Firstly I believe global warming is just a natural trend, and if any man made activity has an effect on it the massive amount of asphalt roads and parking lots would be the source. Think about it mile after mile of solar powered heaters vs a inert gas? The CO2 theory is just a scam.
But there are real possibilities that would cause a major "shift" in agriculture, off the top of my head; a mega-volcano like yellow stone erupting or the magnetic poles flipping. Besides the obvious switching of land crops that would take place, underground farm fields is now possible with the advancements in solar power and full spectrum lighting. Also with the great possibilities that sea grown crops and ranching has, it makes a bleak scenario extremely unlikely.
Jan 3 2013: lol Ok, you caught me. I'm part of a big scam. CO2 is not building up from human activity. Even if it's building up it doesn't really affect the heat budget by radiative forcing as reported by the IPCC. They all lied. And the amount of radiative forcing by CO2 is not 1.6 watts per square meter, since it was peer reviewed by the co-conspirators. I'm so ashamed. I guess the only honorable thing to do is give back the millions that Al Gore and Bill Gates bribed me with to run this subversive conversation. What was I thinking?
Jan 3 2013: Funny, to see you ridiculizing conspiracy thinking, whilst you yourself wondered whether Michael Specter was being paid for having his opinion.
CO2 doubling causes roughly a 1.1 -1.2 degrees raise
The rest of the estimated increase is driven by models, that used to be high in sensitivity and with lots of positive feedback loops, but were notoriously unreliable.
Recent evidence points to low sensitivity and lukewarm warming.Jan 3 2013: Interesting, I posted in hopes to calm you fear of a bleak agriculture future and you read it as a clam that you are part of the scam. Totally dismissing the possibility asphalt roads may be a greater factor.
I did acknowledge that there are indisputable possibilities that would cause a major "shift" in agriculture and proposed areas in which that would be possible expand agriculture.
I did this in hopes of having a productive conversation; for example (as someone knowledgeable about biospheres) you could have replied why or why not growing crop with solar power full spectrum lighting would work.
If I had gotten a proper TED reply I could have replied back with something about how it would even keep the day/night cycle and even seasonal lighting changes would automatically be done, with the lighting being solar powered.
Jan 3 2013: My intention is to encourage creative practical thinking. I do not mean to incite fear. I do not mean to incite anger either. I admit that conduct this inquiry with certain assumptions and suppositions. Unspoken and unmentioned is my supposition the participants in this discussion would intend to be helpful, not to me personally to the climate crisis. If you truly don't believe that humans have a role to play in addressing this issue I can accept that. My "lol" was just an honest response. I meant no disrespect, and certainly meant no vilification. If you don't believe that human activity is causing global warming, then I don't think you'll have anything helpful to offer since we aren't recognizing the same causal relationships.Jan 4 2013: How can you calm him with your reply, as you lack any authority to make claims, nor do you post any external sources that back you up?
We can't hardly hold any random scientific fantasizing we hear on internet for the truth.
All scientific claims I read, do point on CO2 causing rising temperatures. But, as I state in the post above, temperatures might not rise as much as was long claimed.
ps. How do flipping magnetic poles cause agricultural shifts?Jan 2 2013: I believe the answer lies in changing what we eat. Farming today requires land to create the grains to feed animals that we then over consume.
Change to a plant based diet, and grow the foods for people.
Plant the Moringa oleifera, or Drumstick Tree and Sugar Palms as explained so well in TED talks here to provide the proper nutrition on the land we have.
Jan 3 2013: What. Are you saying I need to diet? Can you see me? Seriously, I only heard about the Sugar Palms from the orangutan preserves in Borneo. I understand it can be tapped for sugar without destroying the tree. This sounds excellent. I find that Moringa trees may be a good insurance against loss. It can also be harvested without destroying the tree. And it grows back quickly.
I still tend to think that we can mitigate the worst of climate change before it peaks.Jan 1 2013: Best wishes to you and your loved ones for 2013 Mark and everyone else on TED. Had a similar conversation with a friend about this. We were debating the impact of logistics on food distribution. In the U.K, over the last three years we have had increased rainfall due to (non-tech term) 'buckled jet stream'. All the root crops have rotted in the ground and plants like tomatoes have suffered from the excessive attentions of fungus and insects. However every cloud has a silver lining and some birds managed to get two lots of chicks produced so it mopped up some of excess insects. My friend pointed out that at some point, somewhere there is sufficient crops to feed the local population plus sell the extra. It is all in the movement of the food and at the moment petrol is very expensive. BTW I realise living in UK we are incredibly lucky. So once again a complex situation in 3000 characters. Do worry about 'dark' stores and the implications of centralised purchasing when majority of population so time-poor they only shop on-line. Very worried UK govt talking about introducing food tokens to stop people on benefits buying cigarettes and booze. Logistics - big fan of 'just in time' management but food takes at least three months to grow and in the case of meat at least a year at this latitude. Old skills like bottling and preserving not taught here for at least three generations, city kids don't even know what an animal looks like as the meat is presented on a polystyrene tray and actually buying any meat other than sausages getting really expensive. Try to grow my own at local allotments but essentially a population that is time poor does not have enough time to service their food supply. Fascinating debate thank you so much.
Jan 2 2013: CO2 blankets Earth and keeps too much heat in. This change in average temperature may cause some very bad things globally in this century (perhaps a lowered carrying capacity due to loss of arable land). It's hard to tell what will hurt us worst or first, but it will probably hurt us badly. We are the ones pumping CO2 into the air in the first place. We have to figure out effective ways of doing things differently so we can have a safer future for the planet. We are not that good at helping each other really. We are not comfortable with change in general. If this were easy, it wouldn't be worth asking.
Happy New Year to you, Elizabeth Muncey. Best wishes to you and yours.Dec 31 2012: To so many of these comments and ideas I'd want to add my original question: And what do you think we should do? I didn't ask "why do you think we are already doing everything right?" Nor did I ask "why do you think we're doomed." So to iterate: What do you think we should do? How do you think we can make this planet a better place, while considering the supposition that certain predictions may be accurate, as scary as they are?
Jan 1 2013: Easy answer Mark, hard to practice. If you want to have enough food for everyone, you need less everyones. No politician will admit that though, and individuals all want to do whatever they want, and have as many children as they want, so really, what can you do about it? Look at our reactions to China's one child policy. Many Americans I talk to think it is barbaric and horrible that a society would dare try to control the population. So, if populations just keep increasing, while resources keep diminishing, a lot more people are going to starve, simple as that. Last year, the world grew less food than it consumed. That can't go on forever obviously. What we COULD do, is to think about sustainability not in terms of buying shade tree grown coffee, but as not having too many children for the resources we have. But again, most people think it is in the constitution somewhere that they should have as many kids as they want. So, the real question is how to change peoples' minds.
Jan 1 2013: Everyone is seven billion.
And I still want to know what you think we should do now. Getting more food might help. Having a lower birthrate might help. Reversing CO2 venting to the atmosphere might help. Geo-engineering to lower global temperature might help. Finding ways to bond as a species team might help. Alternate sources of energy might help.
And education, particularly zero to five-years-old creativity and such might help change people's minds together.
What other possibilities are there?
There are political solutions, educational solutions, empathic solutions, collective intelligence solutions, technical solutions, business solutions, economic solutions...
But again, there are 7 billion of us with each a different perspective about what can most effectively be done first.
So the real question is: what do you have to bring to the table? Easy answers? Ain't no free lunch!
Jan 2 2013: Thought it was pretty clear. To be sustainable, the population needs to not exceed the resources of the planet. But, that is not human nature.Jan 2 2013: Why would you consider any problem more easily solved with more hands and more heads, except for global warming?
I think we will solve it sooner, with more people.
People are not problems, they are problemsolvers.
Unpredictable and unknowable seem like reasons to not take drastic measures against it.
Btw latest evidence points to lukewarm, slightly beneficial, warming,
http://rationaloptimist.com/blog/low-climate-sensitivity.aspxJan 5 2013: @tomas jones
I do not illustrate the 'problem'. I do think about it, quite a bit more than you guys have. As such I have written 3 blogs on it.
We have infinite resources:
As such there is no peak anything:
That's why overpopulation is a non existing problem:
And I do want to implore you to read more of the barbaric policy of China, where killing baby girls was not the intend, it is certainly the logical consequence.Jan 2 2013: I would be interested to hear your explanation on the fact that we produce the most per capita food now than ever before. And more energy per capita than ever.
Far from diminishing resources, more people mean more resources available per person. Practically all resources are more affordable now than ever, thus less scarce. (In fact the only resource that has consistently become more expensive (and thus scarcer) are people)
It is not ' if populations just keep increasing, while resources keep diminishing, a lot more people are going to starve, simple as that', That's lazy thinking, dogmatic and with no scientific justification whatsoever. The more people we are, the more we all have, and you lot never seem to understand why.
And you should be ashamed hailing a policy that invoked the Chinese (poor) people to throw millions of baby girls into the dustbin, only seconds after their births, with mothers screaming for their new born; with hardly any noticable difference in birthrates in comparison with other Asian countries that did not have a 1 child policy (see Hans Rosling).
It is perhaps the greatest genocide in recent history. And you defend it, because you are (erroneously) under the impression that those babies will take a piece of your pie. Sickening.
Jan 2 2013: We produce more food per capita now than ever. Check. True. We provide more energy per capita now than ever. Check. True.
All that increase in energy use comes with the price everyone pays: the unpredictable tipping points of global warming. This includes a reduced carrying capacity of the planet.
Also true that a reduction in population would slow the approach of these unknowable tipping points or positive feedback dangers. It is one very cruel but possible means of avoiding the dangers. As drastic as it is, I would compare it to the need to diet in order to lose weight by eating 3 fewer donuts from your daily dozen.
See http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html for more on balancing a zero carbon equation.
CO2 = P x S x E x C
He didn't consider negative carbon footprints for biochar soil enrichment and reforestation.Jan 4 2013: Victor, have you also noticed there was a huge drought and that the world actually produced less food than it consumed this year? How long do you think that can go on? Also, I ask you to read about peak oil. Our entire economic system is based on oil and sorry to say, it is a limited resource. The North Sea, Alaska, and even some of the gulf states production is sinking and they are having to pump a lot more water just to get those numbers (water, another limited resource). People in China and India are wanting to live like Americans, so where is all that oil going to come from? Also, if there is such a glut of energy, why is oil 5 times the cost of what it was 10 years ago?
You illustrate the problem perfectly. No one wants to think about controlling the population and say it is evil to even think of such a thing. So, that is why nothing will ever be solved. By the way, actually read about the one child policy in China. It is not about killing girls, or killing anyone.Dec 31 2012: False choices abound here. Choosing "clean air" does not slow down CO2 vent. Choosing self preservation does not help ameliorate global problems. Choosing not to go to war does not build empathic civilization.Dec 30 2012: Make a similar but stricter one child policy
Dec 31 2012: I never understood why some people choose a one child policy over eating less meat. Does eating meat 5, 6 or even 7 days per week really mean that much to people?
Jan 2 2013: I am just as amazed. Apparently so.Dec 31 2012: Joshua and John, policy changes are part of the solution. Rather than stricter in the sense of more sticks and carrots, perhaps more allowance for intrinsic motivations of autonomy, mastery and purpose. Promoting ecologically sound policy solutions for foods other than meat might also be worthy of pursuit for the greater good. Too many people present their ideas as "either/or" paths. Let's do more and/and.
Jan 1 2013: Of course, however a one child policy is much more drastic and doesn't necessarily have more effect than simply eating less meat (which could be accomplished through awareness campaigns, cutting subsidies, increasing animal welfare requirements and introducing a tax on meat). Growing food for livestock takes up about 2/3 of all agriculture and only 1 in 17 of the calories in these plants is stored in the meat. So a reduction in meat consumption of just 25% will yield over 15% more calories for humanity without an expansion of agriculture, that's enough food to feed another 1 billion people on top of the 7 billion we already have.
I'm not sure urban gardens actually reduce net energy use, but those other options might, there is also a lot to gain by switching staple foods, for example potatoes are more efficient than rice. Much of the energy use comes from shipping food around the world because somewhere else farmrs work for less, which is the real problem: if there wasn't such a divide between rich and poor countries much more food would be grown locally.
Btw, may I congratulate on the quality of this topic: it's really refreshing to have one that's 99 posts long and intelligently discusses real problems in a civil manner with no loonies.
Jan 2 2013: I agree on your logic of reducing meat consumption. How about another comparison, and maybe a step with more leverage: For every 1 calorie of food produced, we use 10 calories of energy in the form of fuel. Since it is that fuel which vents CO2 and causes the problem of blanketed warming, why not shift less energy intensive means of production such as agroforestry, mega-gardening, hydroponics, urban gardens on roof and wall, Permaculture, etc. That way we produce more food with less expenditure of energy, keeping it local and reduced livestock.
I'm looking for ideas that might increase our "leverage."Dec 29 2012: Given the current global population of 7+billion, your scenario of a global carrying capacity of 1 billion would mean the premature death of 6/7th of the world's population – by starvation or war - since one generates the other.
Given that death by starvation or violence is horrible to contemplate, it would be responsible to reduce our population naturally by reducing the birth rate so as to manage a reduction in global population in an organised and equitable way. High taxes and / or removal of social benefits for those with big families (3 or more children), balanced with extra financial and social rewards for those who choose to have one or no children. Don't ask me how we acheive this as a globally agreed policy!
The entire global population would need to revert to a mostly vegetarian diet, growing whatever crops grow well locally. New foods such as eating insects (Locusts) would become necessary since they are nutritional and can be farmed easily and quickly. Traditional meat such as beef and pork would need to be drastically reduced as they are resource hungry.
Since CO2 is "food" for growing plants domestic and office hydroponic systems will become common – saving on food transportation and taking advantage of vertical space and indoor micro-climates.
This answer is certainly NOT in creating more and more genetically modified crops. The well predicted Monsanto mess has resulted in the development of super weeds resistant to Round-UP.
Jan 2 2013: As with any tool, say an ax for example, we can use it well and safely when we take enough care to do things right. There are also sick or careless human possibilities for its use.
Of course GM and nuclear power are potentially hazardous on a much larger scale, but they may hold the benefits we need to make it as a species.
We could "revert" to a veggie diet without much harm, only inconvenience. This is why I asked the question: To see what people think of as too dangerous or appropriate solutions.
CO2 is food for plants and promotes growth, but long before then it is blanketing and collecting heat from the sun which is the major cause of the climate crisis in the first place. It's invisible. The effects are huge and carry great momentum, making warming very hard to stop, but since it's spread out it's also hard to measure accurately. Argo buoys are among the best. See http://wo.jcommops.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Argo
Death by starvation is not given. It is predicted. Agreement on any policy is tricky, yes. Note the resources we have globally to wage war on each other. The kind of threat in the prediction we are pondering would be more devastating than nuclear war, Yet as gruesome as all-out war is, we continue to support its possibility. Isn't that a curious thought?Dec 29 2012: Re: "we should collectively become architects of our future."
Some of us will and some won't. You're suggesting the "we," meaning all, can gain a sufficient awareness about non linear matters. This remains to be seen. The alternative is a tipping point where a substantial influence can be applied by the some who can.
Re: "Collective intelligence itself is a field of study"
Without getting into a discussion of how we might gain a pre-frontal cortex for a "group mind", we are left with "collective unconsciousness." At best change of this type is generations away, and my best guess is that it would be achieve through a new social narrative, like "Avatar", and with video games along the lines that Jane McGonigal is suggesting.
Jan 2 2013: Clay Shirky in Cognitive Surplus
"Humans are fundamentally individual, but we are also fundamentally social. Every one of us has a rational mind; we can make individual assessments and decisions. We also have an emotional mind; we can enter into deep bonds with other people that transcend our individual intellects."
Jan 3 2013: Shirky also says, ""Free cultures get what they celebrate." While "we can also celebrate and support and reward the people trying to use cognitive surplus to create civic value," we are, I fear, to distracted and self oriented to accomplish much of anything. i.e. Occupy World St. and the Arab Spring.
""My simple idea is that what's happened is, the real 21st century around us isn't so obvious to us, so instead we spend our time responding rationally to a world which we understand and recognize, but which no longer exists." Eddie ObengDec 29 2012: There is a principle called the "logistic grow curve." Simply put, animals populations increase when conditions are favorable, and decrease when the available resources become limited.
"The logistic equation (sometimes called the Verhulst model or logistic growth curve) is a model of population growth first published by Pierre Verhulst (1845, 1847). The model is continuous in time, but a modification of the continuous equation to a discrete quadratic recurrence equation known as the logistic map is also widely used.
"The Verhulst equation was published after Verhulst had read Thomas Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population. Verhulst derived his logistic equation to describe the self-limiting growth of a biological population. The equation is also sometimes called the Verhulst-Pearl equation following its rediscovery in 1920. Alfred J. Lotka derived the equation again in 1925, calling it the law of population growth."
also see: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Logistic_growth
For those that care to understand the complexity of the problem, see:
Dec 29 2012: I believe we are talking about similar trends albeit with different elements involved. Peak oil and peak farm land reflect peak population in concept. A logistic growth curve seems to work with all other variables set. The issue is not that the carrying capacity is low now, but rather will be held low by a change that turns once arable land into desert. The tree line moves north at some speed as well, but I understand that the over-all effect is a reduction of available land for growing food. I do not mean to suggest that we should welcome a wiped out world population, but rather that we should collectively become architects of our future. Collective intelligence itself is a field of study and an appropriate tool, as is geo-engineering, and alternate economies.Dec 28 2012: The transcrip of the first video looks like it was run through a bad translator. My video card is going out so I have no other way to watch the vid right now.Second video no transcript available. Couldn't get any of them to play and there are no good transcripts.
This is typical of the forge ahead screw everybody else mentality that is going to and is bringing our society down. It's sad to see it here.
Dec 29 2012: I'm terribly sorry you didn't get to see Mr. Rifkin. If that's what you were referring to, you might find it easier to view his talk here:
I hope this helps.Dec 28 2012: 1) drastically reduce meat production (this is the most important part)
2) adopt more efficient crops (potatoes over rice)
3) change packaging strategies so that it becomes more likely all the contents get used
4) build systems that filter phosphorous from rivers and other farmland drains.
Dec 29 2012: I think I would heartily endorse each recommendation but I would like to add a caveat to 4). A phosphorous filter might be designed into the system that draws on waste phosphorous to form useful forms to return to soil instead of being bound for landfill. Phosphorous in the form of phosphates need to be balanced in water and soil ecosystems.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
"Any Thing for Me, If You Please?"--Post Office of the Brooklyn Fair in Aid of the Sanitary Commission
Homer produced this illustration of the Brooklyn Sanitary Fair shortly after the bazaar opened in 1864. One of the fundraising event's most popular attractions was the "Post Office," where people could pay to send messages to others at the fair. The mailing booth also served as a site of flirtatious dalliance between male visitors and the young women who generally staffed the office.
- Artist: Winslow Homer, American, 1836-1910
- Medium: Wood engraving
- Dates: 1864
- Dimensions: Image: 13 5/8 x 9 in. (34.6 x 22.9 cm) Sheet: 16 x 11 3/8 in. (40.6 x 28.9 cm) (show scale)
- Collections:American Art
- Museum Location: This item is not on view
- Exhibitions:
- Accession Number: 1998.105.87
- Credit Line: Gift of Harvey Isbitts
- Rights Statement: No known copyright restrictions
- Caption: Winslow Homer (American, 1836-1910). "Any Thing for Me, If You Please?"--Post Office of the Brooklyn Fair in Aid of the Sanitary Commission, 1864. Wood engraving, Image: 13 5/8 x 9 in. (34.6 x 22.9 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Gift of Harvey Isbitts, 1998.105.87
- Image:
- Catalogue Description: Page from Harper's Weekly, March 5, 1864, vol. VIII, p. 156
- Record Completeness: Best (86%)


text:
The Da Vinci Code is an engaging fictional detective story about a great historical deception. The dark con of man, perpetrated against humanity. The Holy Grail revealed to be nothing less than the ultimate proof of the deception and the key to set men free and change the world. It's amazing how history can mislead people and how a single secret can debunk a long-standing myth. Vim is an old editor and the Vim community has long been a victim of such a myth: The Esc key. With Vim best strength being hand posture and efficiency of the home row, tons of Vim users have been wondering
Why the hell is the Esc key so awkward to type?
And even feeling the pain, most of them just kept using it as it is, because that's how it was conceived so it must be right. Welcome to the Historian's Fallacy. It's that way but it was never conceived that way. Let me show you the Grail.
This is a Lear Siegler ADM3A terminal, produced in 1975. The one used by Bill Joy while at Berkeley he developed the Ex editor and then Vi, starting since summer 1976. Now look at the Esc key. It was where today the very convenient Tab key is, just top left of the home row! That's why he chose it. But with the need of typing escape sequences going down and down, it was moved …
Here in the IBM 83-key keyboard (1981). And it was moved …
Here in the IBM Model M, second half of the eighties. Where it was left for the next almost three decades, in the very inconvenient top left of the keyboard. Control key had the same fate, just in the other direction. The two fantastic spots close to the home row were taken respectively by the Tab key and the Caps lock key. Now you know it was not meant to be that painful. That's the great deception, but we can fix it by answering another one million dollar question
What the hell is the Caps lock needed for?
It turns out it's even more legacy than Esc. It dates back to mechanical typewriters (gosh) as a lock for the Shift key. Needed because pressing the Shift key physically shifted the positioning of the typebars relative to the ink ribbon, so it was tiring. It's a dinosaur that can be sacrificed to rectify the flow and there are two reasonable ways. You could remap the Caps lock to Esc, and that would be fine. But there's an even smarter approach i highly suggest if you have an easy to type "[" key (like in the US layout):
Remap your Caps lock to Control and use Vim alternative way to Esc, that is Control + [
Caps lock (as Control) and "[" are keys very close to the home row, hit by different hands, so hardly more difficult than typing Caps lock (as Esc) alone. What's nice is you can also benefit when typing those Control/something combos that are pretty common. This way you'll get the best of both worlds and guess what, if you have a nice OS that's gonna take just 30 seconds. For the others Google is your friend.