Water
“In a way, science might be described as paranoid thinking applied to Nature: we are looking for natural conspiracies, for connections among apparently disparate data. Our objective is to abstract patterns from Nature (right-hemisphere thinking), but many proposed patterns do not in fact correspond to the data. Thus all proposed patterns must be subjected to the sieve of critical analysis (left-hemisphere thinking).”
― Carl Sagan, Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence
Since I was a kid, growing up on a small family farm, I learned from old people ways to be pretty accurate about the seasonal weather forecast. Now that I'm an old man, the number of broken bones I've had help me know when a storm is coming. It's been a fairly dry summer here in the northeast, and the water table is low.
Although my numerous water were mighty low, yesterday I used the last in them to water my garden. I depend upon the food I grow, and am having good results thus far. I also knew that we'd be getting rain last night and today, and hopefully off and on over the next few days. It was a bit more of a chore yesterday, though, as I've had some reaction to the latest covid booster shot, distinct from the previous ones. But I trust science, and consider it a small price. Plus I know that water is essential for life.
I remember talking about water with Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman over the years I served as his top assistant. Paul thought that science was documenting a lot of things that were part of his people's traditional knowledge, which was rooted in their experiences living here, on this land, for thousands of years. As such, he was very concerned about the damage being done to the air, land, and water.
All life on Earth came from water. When scientists look for evidence of life in distant worlds, the first thing they look for is if water has existed on them. Living beings are found in water, and those living outside of water tend to have contact with water to maintain life. The only waters that doesn't have life in it are those that human beings have polluted with toxins. And water with toxins poisons those living beings on land that come in contact with. Toxic waters causes sickness and death. The toxic poisons that human beings dump into the water float downstream. This includes going downstream in distance and time, to the next communities and generations.
Now, in the Good Book, it makes clear that the Earth does not belong to humans, that we are but sojourners. (Leviticus 25:23; Psalm 24) But I do not limit myself to religious or spiritual concepts. For example, I talk about the environment with my brother who lives in the northwest. He works at a university, and likes having lunch with the professors of environmental studies. My brother is an atheist who loves science.
His co-workers tell him that humanity is up against it. Things are already in motion that will destroy the ability to grow necessary amounts of food in parts of the world. They will not get enough rain, as things warm up. That isn't just in third world countries, mind you. They think the sothwest will continue to get hotter and drier, and the eastern coast and Gulf Coast will continue to have more frequent and serious floods. Thu, migrations will not be limited to those from Central America already being displaced by environmental changes.
I also think about one of Malcolm X's teachings: if you put aa glass of sparkling clean water next to a filthy glass of sludge, thirsty people will make the correct choice. I think that is true, but question if there are not people who lack the conscience required to stop destroying the environment so long as they can make a dime selling slufge to the public. That would include even a senator, for example, if he/she and/or his/her family made money off, say, coal. That might result in that senator knee-capping a good president's programs to address the environment. It might even make it very difficult to identify when that senator voted with the Democrats on a single issue that energy corporations and republicans oppose.
We are in strange times. But I enjoyed talking on the telephone this afternoon, with a young lady who is a volunteer with the congressional campaign I'm working on. The Democratic primary comes in late August. There are two Democrats: the one I volunteer with has good experience working with our elected representatives in DC, and who accepts zero corporate funding, the other is a now-former Wall Street executive, running on corporate funding. My candidate advocates for things like child health care coverage and other issues that will result in his republican opponent calling him a "socialist" in the general election season.
But he is not. I consider him to be a liberal, who is fairly moderate overall, and who understands science. We need change. Now, I wish he was a socialist, and am pretty darned sure those young adults volunteering with his campaign would agree. And I know for a fact they all have concerns that not enough is being done on environmental issues. Not their only concern, but one that helps get them active in Democratic Party politics. That will matter in November.
= new reply since forum marked as read
She understands.