Vida Enigmática

"Who speaks for Earth?"

Who speaks for Earth?

atmosphere Australia biodiversity buying case climate climate change consumerism don't Earth environment environmental extinction food home humanity know Leslie Dean Brown life Mars materials money natural nature oxygen part planet power products reason rich science scientific scientists sustainable technology tell thing trees value want water what work world

Webdesign by thelastpistachio.com
Logo by logobrain. All rights reserved © 2025.

PART III: “Got your mind in submission. Got your life on the line”

March 19, 2018 — leslie dean brown

Illustration by leslie dean brown. © 2019. All rights reserved.
Once inside, I felt frustrated and angry initally, especially with Mister PorkFace for putting me here.

[continued from part II]

I began pacing around the main room. They still hadn’t given me my phone back, let alone my laptop. For now, the only thing I was permitted to have were my clothes. I felt like they were punishing me.

Not knowing where to go or what to do, they showed me to my room. Yes, I had my own private quarters. I sat on the bed and looked around.

Everything, what little there was, was modern and lamintated. No real wood, no natural materials, fully synthetic surfaces. It all looked very sterile. That’s the only way I can describe it. Minimalist, solid and sterile.

There were bedside tables, but there was no drawers in them – they were just like these hollow, extruded square shapes, with a strong base for support, that’s literally all there was to them.

The bed was positioned perpendicular to the wall, like in a traditional hospital. But 90° opposite to what you might expect in a veritable cell, given the level of security elsewhere. Unlike in a hospital, this bed was rock solid, like it had been built into the very foundation of the building. It wouldn’t budge. Come to think of it, it looked a bit like a bed you might find in an surgical operating theatre. Even those appear to be more mobile I would think. More like the bed Frankenstein woke up on. Yes, exactly like that. Like it could support a 500lb man without any problem, but way too narrow to accomodate someone of that stature in any case. All that were missing were the straps going across it to physically restrain someone.

Rooms were very sparse indeed: just the bed dominating the centre portion of the room, the aforementioned bedside table, a type of wall desk with some open shelves adjoined to it (with no cupboard doors obviously).

Everything was a continual reminder, though, as to why we were there. Everything was specifially designed to minimise risk of either self harm or harm towards others. And I mean everything. There were no protruding door knobs or handles anywhere in sight. So people couldn’t injure themselves. And the reason I’m decribing this place in such detail in the first place, is because photographs were strictly prohibited (more on that below).

Interestingly, there was a separate ensuite in one corner of the room, with it’s own door. Despite that second door and its association with privacy, I could never have a shower longer than about 5 minutes before one of the staff knocked outside the main one to confirm my presence and ask whether I was alright.

Inside, the taps were designed very differently to what you might expect. It appears their design criteria included the inability to significantly harm oneself on them, or harm someone else on them (and that was definitely prioritised over their ease of use). As such, they were much harder to turn on and off than normal taps. I can’t remember now but I’m pretty sure that both the sink basin and toilet were not made of traditional ceramic materials as you’ve seen them in bathrooms elsewhere, such as stoneware, earthware or porcelain –but rather– solid metal. If you saw the design brief for this institution, I bet it probably would have read “f r a g i l e / b r i t t l e   m a t e r i a l s   b a n n e d   u n d e r   a l l   c i r c u  m s t a n c e s !”.

I’m pretty sure the mirrors weren’t made of glass, either. It was difficult to tell, because they were bolted to the walls with loads of torx screws. Nothing was left simply “hanging freely” on the walls. Nothing! Everything was either bolted down or else removed, so that people couldn’t throw anything of substantial weight around. It all gave the impression that they’d “been there, done that” with respect to any sort of problem breakages.

Signs on the wall stated that the rooms were “electrically protected”, whatever that means. I presume it means we couldn’t electrocute ourselves even if we wanted to. They didn’t trust any one of us. Not with anything.

Every night, the night shift staff would do their rounds and check on us to see how we were doing. Every hour they would come. All through the night; they’d shine a torch light into our rooms, right in our face. To make sure we were still alive, basically. Slightly annoying when you are trying to get some sleep in strange surroundings. Still, in many ways, it felt comforting, to be looked upon like that.

I thought of many ways I could potentially kill myself in there, as a last resort. Like hanging myself with the belt I was wearing, electrocution, or cutting myself by dismantling the two-blade disposable razor they had loaned me. All of the ‘obvious’ ways. And I even thought one not so obvious one: swallowing excessive quantities of plain old ordinary everyday drinking water. They hadn’t thought of that, had they? To restrict the flow of running water. Yes, if you are ‘clever’, there are always ways one can find to try to kill one’s self.

I’m not sure on what day it was, but on one of the days during my stay I had another, longer meeting with a different psychiatrist –via teleconference– with two others present beside me. This particular psychiatrist (let’s call him #2) had at least understood where I was coming from and why I was so depressed. I had told him about recent changes in my life and my concerns for the future of this world.

I asked them rhetorically: “why is it okay for this civilisation, this society, to act suicidally and yet I cannot even be permitted to have suicidal thoughts?”. There was no immediate answer. One of the Doctors nodded in agreement while continuing tapping away at his laptop. He didn’t look up. He just nodded and typed simultaneously.

And I told them all about why I was worried. Because here I had an audience. Even if it was only three people. They were three important people. Because if you know anything about this blog, then you already know that I am very concerned about the state of the environment. About what I would describe as a continual attack on nature — as if we were at war and it were the enemy. About what scientists are now describing as “the 6th great extinction”. About ‘development’ really being an oxymoron. And that we’re not separate from nature. That we rely on nature. That we humans still rely on nature. That we are still very much a part of nature. And that biodiversity inspires people — creative people. That much research, some of the best research, yes even with synthetic materials, relies on biodiversity. Biomimicry. That biodiversity provides eco system services. That it’s our life-support system. That ultimately we need biodiversity. That what we are doing, I believe, is not sustainable in the long term. That something has to change. Because civilisations rise and then sooner or later they fall.

I was hoping that it would all be written down and recorded somewhere.  That at least this one root cause of my depression would filter through all of our government bureaucracy — for someone even more important to read and evaluate at a later date. I told them who I was and that I even had a Doctorate in Materials Science. As if that somehow mattered more. I wanted them to know that this one scientist at the very least had reached his own personal limit. That maybe they would be seeing more and more of us. And then maybe something might be done about it.

The other nurse pulled me aside later on and said that he agreed with me about what I was saying. Number 2 had reccommended that I be released “either today or tomorrow” — but I found out later that he was overruled by number 1, the porky one.

Another day went by. I started getting into an argument with a totally *ignorant* security guard inside the psych ward about the state of the world. About how the natural environment was in decline. He was in classic state of denial and so I threw some hard facts at him. I wonder how long people can continue to fool themselves like this? I mean, surely some environmental news must penetrate through to them? Of course, all the patients know what is going on. And maybe that should tell you something.

Anway, I asked him how many scientists he had talked to. “None”, he said. “Well you’re talking to one now!”, I retorted. Was it arrogant? Yes. Yes it was. Very! But you have to remember I was literally at my breaking point. And I have become tired of being diplomatic and politically correct all the time. There’s simply too much at stake. I feel like I have my own “duty of care” so to speak.

Then he finally said: “Well what do you want me to do?!” (with a definite attitude, like it was a rhetorical question). 1

My friend looked (glared) at me as if to say “Shut up! Don’t esculate the situation further! Think about where you are!!”. He was right. After that, I decided to totally back off because that is not the best place to lose one’s temper (if they have to, they’ll stick a needle in your butt to tranquilise you as they escort you to the so called “high dependency” ward). You can’t get angry because you are constantly being monitored. Well you can– but then there are instant repercussions for that sort of unruly behaviour. They don’t tolerate it.

I also thought about piling up some chairs and scaling the 20ft outside walls. But I was told by other patients that it only makes things worse and that’s when they would call the cops and/or drag me into what is called the “high dependency” section of the ward. If you did manage to escape they would only come looking for you at home. And so what’s the point?

[continued to part IV]

 

No, you don’t need a doctor
No one else can heal your soul
Got your mind in submission
Got your life on the line
But nobody pulled the trigger
They just stepped aside
They’ll be down by the water
While you watch ’em wavin’ goodbye

Axl Rose, Coma GNR.

The true value of soil

March 29, 2017 — leslie dean brown

Food practically grows all by itself on planet Earth.
Illustration by Leslie Dean Brown. © 2015. All rights reserved.

Let me ask you something: do we actually ‘make’ our own food? Do we? The answer is “no we do not make our own food”. We just throw pre-existing seeds in the ground and make sure most of them get enough water to sprout. We don’t make it from first principles; it grows all by itself from the soil! We simply harvest that food (once it has already grown).

Let me ask you the next question: do we humans ‘make’ soil? Not can we make it, do we make it? Again, no. Bacteria, worms and insects do that for us. Sure we might put organic matter such as apple cores, banana skins and orange peels onto the old compost pile and think we’re making

loads more soil. We might even throw things like paper and cardboard onto our compost as well and think we’re creating heaps and heaps and heaps of soil.

We certainly tend to the plants. We avoid flooding unless we’re growing rice. But what I think humans really do is collect, store and distribute food. If we had to do all of that for 7 billion people, for 7 million people, for even 7 thousand people, with no air, no water and no soil to begin with, I think you’d see scientists really starting to scratch their heads. Can’t be done! It just can’t be done.

But are we? What are we really doing? Once gain, where did that apple core come from? Where did that banana skin come from? Where did that paper come from? Where did those trees come from? The chances are you’ll find that most of it wasn’t hydroponically produced (using liquid fertilisers and zero soil). Was it? No. It was mosty farmed, from pre-existing soil. And I’m guessing that that soil, ladies and gentlemen, took thousands and thousands and thousands of years to form.

So is it any wonder that farmers commit suicide, when they tell us that the quality of soil is falling?

In other words, we’re not somehow magically separated from nature. Scientists are never really able forget this. If seven, eight, nine or ten billion people want to live on this planet for more than a few centuries or millenia into the future, then we’re going to have to re-evaluate our values and our priorities. I think it’s time we refocus our efforts on Earth (even Carl Sagan’s last book, pale blue dot was as much about Earth as deep space and look how ‘into’ deep space adventures he was). Going to Mars is not a viable option.

And so you might say: “well okay, I know people that actually eat 100% hydroponically-grown foods, I’ve seen it”. And again I ask: but the people who made the hydroponic setup, did they also get all of their food from hydroponically grown plants? What about the people who made all that fertiliser? What about the people who built the whole darn fertiliser setup? What about the people who transported all of the above? And what about the people who built the vehicles so that all of that lot could be transported? Did they all eat hydroponically grown food too?

Is everyone in that hydroponics industry only eating 100% hydroponically-grown foods? Short answer? No. So my point is that at the moment, even if we can hydroponically grow a bunch of food, it’s being heavily, massively subsidised by nature.

What scientists fear most.

March 25, 2017 — leslie dean brown

I don’t even think  this debate is merely about “global warming” anymore…

I think it’s more about whether you believe humans can alter the environment at a global as well as a local scale. I mean, all of us can accept that even cockroaches and rats can change their local little jaunts easily enough…

(either inadvertently and/or purposefully; it doesn’t really matter for the sake of this argument whether the changes are intended or not) 

There is no question that we alter things at a local scale. We can directly manipulate the atomic, molecular and microscopic scales. We manipulate things at the ‘macro’ scale, too (the scale of what we can see without the aid of a microscope). We make things, change things, on the scale of millimetres, centimetres, metres, even kilometres. We make runways for instance. How long are they? Right?

Here’s a timely reminder — Earth’s atmosphere is only about 10km ‘thick’. I’m sure most people don’t stop to appreciate this on their morning or afternoon commute: most people travel more in one single day –be it driving a car or walking in the Ethiopian desert– than the Earth’s atmosphere is ‘deep’. They most likely travel at least this distance every single day of their lives, perhaps more.

One only needs to look around a city, any city, to know that the human civilisation built it. We most definitely changed it. Why? Because it doesn’t look like it did before humans settled there, that’s why. Isn’t it obvious? Before that, it was a forest or a jungle, a river’s edge or a peat bog.

And so we continue to dam rivers and build bridges. We build skyscrapers and oil tankers and cruise liners. We construct entire airports offshore.

We tear down forests and we mine the Earth. At every and any opportunity. Why? To make it more ‘comfortable’ for ourselves. We spew out all kinds of gases and chemicals into our waterways and our atmosphere. And somehow, miraculously, none of this can even remotely alter something so basic as “the average temperature”. Somehow “that’s impossible”2.

At what point along the size scale do people go from accepting that “yes absolutely humans can and do cause local changes in the form of urbanisation” to becoming ones of “oh no, humans are too puny to have caused this, this is god’s realm, carry on” in someone’s mind? At what scale? Where exactly do they let go of reality?

Here’s the thing that most people don’t seem to understand or comprehend: if you do enough “local-scale things” all around the planet, then it has to change at a global scale as well. It has to! Indeed, there really is no black and white distinction between ‘local and global scales’. The cosmos presents a continuous scale, all the way from the very tiniest subatomic particle (and probably smaller) right the way through to galaxies and beyond. And I don’t care what you think you want to believe, each scale does affect the other.

Man is not exempt from the effects of any of these scales (at either the very large-scale end, the very small end or anywhere inbetween). All scales can potentially be ‘dangerous’ to us. We have radiation, we have poison, we have knives, we have trucks crashing into things, we have nuclear bombs. And we also have something else. Something else we can’t quite control as well. The environment: the oxygen in our atmosphere, fresh water, food (and to a lesser extent, gravity). Each represents a different scale. And the presence or absence of each one can equally kill, albeit at different timescales.

There is simply no getting around it… “do enough shit” to the surface of this planet, any planet, and you’ll most likely fuck it up completely rather than make it only slightly ‘better’3

Whether carbon dioxide gas, or any other compound, it really wouldn’t matter what is causing it either, would it? Would it matter to people if it were a different compound such as methane, krypton or something else they’ve never even heard of? Would that help them understand what is going on with vibrational modes of this molecule at infrared frequencies?

Actually, surprisingly, I think the answer to that question is: “it depends”. I think the answer lies in how much this presence or absence of whatever it is we have to give up contributes to our current lifestyle. And I think we all know that we are far less likely to give up our ‘comforts’ than if it’s something we never (or rarely) use anyway.

If we don’t have much to give up, like with CFCs for example (because we simply used a spraycan with a different propellant inside of it), then by all means “let’s do this right now, starting today”. The Result? Ozone hole partially closed already.

A scientist might say that our reluctance to change is “inversely proportional” to the amount that it affects our present and future lifestyle. Lots to give up? Climate change = fake news. Not real. Not happening. Nothing to give up? No reason why it couldn’t be true.

On the other hand, if you’re talking about giving up the power of your very own automobile, reducing your electricity consumption, buying and using less stuff, travelling less, or just even generally using less and less technology instead of more and more — then on second thought, “perhaps not quite so fast”. Right?

Do you know what scientists fear most? Do you know what scares scientists absolutely shitless? Well they might not know it, but I think all scientists inherently fear that one day we’ll lose control of nature. Because right now, science can control nature (well sort of).

Just take a look at this extract from a paper which a climate change denier recently shared with me. It talked about the influence of solar activity on anthropogenic climate change. He obviously was only reading the abstract and conclusion, because this is what the paper said about half way through. Keep in mind, this is from a paper that is leans towards being more critical/skeptical.

“Most of the climate scientists agree, that an increasing absorption with rising CO2 concentration alone, as discussed in the previous subsection, would only moderately contribute to any global warming. The greater worry, however, is that already smaller perturbations, as caused by the GH-effect, may initiate further side effects, which could significantly amplify the primary perturbation and even result in a total destabilization of the quasi equilibrium conditions of EASy. These side-effects are known as feedback processes, which on one side can amplify an initial deviation (positive feedback) or on the other side can also attenuate this deviation (negative feedback).”   

The words “total destablisation of quasi-equilibrium conditions” sure doesn’t sound good for planet Earth. Basically, in English it means that everything goes completely haywire!

Now we don’t want you to panic. But quite frankly, it’s fast getting to that point. Because species are becoming extinct all over the place… and it’s an understatment to say that biologists, entomologists, and soil scientists are not happy about that.

I think to many people, technology may make it seem like “we can do whatever the fuck we want, however we want, whenever we want and wherever we want” and still we’ll all be okay. That no matter what happens, scientists will be smart enough to “figure a way out it”. I mean heck, “who ‘invented’ the ipad?”. People. People are smart. Right?

Wrong. Because even today, in the ‘modern age’ (whatever that is) we don’t have to create our own gravity, sunlight, air pressure, oxygen and water. Do we?

And somehow –some truly clueless, ignorant people– think that “everything’s going to be alright, Jack”. Maybe because it always has been. Maybe because they don’t have a very good imagination about the future. Maybe because they are ignorant. Or maybe they believe in some kind of higher power and that “man can do no harm”, that man’s job is to “work and be more productive”.

These “deniers” generally retort: “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” whenever anyone becomes even remotely ‘alarmist’. As if all alarms are false ones. Even if the alarmists do have a higher IQ.

But I really would really like to see those very same [science] deniers in another, very different, scenario. Say they we have organised a tour of a nuclear power station for them. Just say. Would they stick around, for example, if/when a nuclear scientist is yelling at them: “THE CORE IS GOING INTO MELTDOWN, GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE!!!!!”. Would they be hanging around the containment building, tardily and proudly proclaiming “the sky is falling, the sky is falling!”? Would they be so quick to make a cup of coffee in that instant? Or would they, far more likely, heed the scientists’ advice and flee their sorry arses right on out of there as fast as their legs could carry them? Yes I think the latter.

Or maybe I reall am missing something. Maybe we really are puny. Maybe. Maybe we are so fucking puny, nature will continue to evolve and adapt all around us.

But then I recall biololgists tellings us that the less biodiversity there is, the slower nature recovers from all kinds of change.

Earth’s natural water filters!

January 17, 2017 — leslie dean brown

Why do I seem to ‘hate’ the rich?

January 10, 2017 — leslie dean brown

Ecologists have always said that one of the greatest threats to our natural environment is habitat destruction.

One of the main gripes I have against ultra-high net worth individuals is that they cause the most environmental degradation of all groups on this planet and they don’t tend to offset this with direct contributions back towards the natural environment.

I think the following advertisement nicely sums up the ‘attitude’ that some rich people seem to have:

bentleyfinger

So the reasons that I question ‘rich’ people are:

  1. Because rich people are usually responsible for more environmental destruction than poor people, they have brought about more degradative environmental changes.
  2. Because rich people are primarily motivated by money, they are more likely can be bought out (corrupted) with even more money.
  3. When the rich do give, they tend to give back to humanitarian causes. And if they do give, is it really enough of an offset? Not always, but often. One exception I have found is Mohammad Bin Zayeed; the man started his own species conservation fund. Another is the Betty and Gordon Moore Foundation.

Why is this a problem? Well, because the only physical thing (that I know of) that stops our Earth from becoming uninhabitable is all the life forms found on Earth that stabilise everything for us. The biosphere.

Any biologist will tell you that, realistically, what is going to happen is that as nature continues to “bite back” with ever-greater intensity, productivity (and therefore profit) is just going to go down eventually… it has to. It must! Less biodiversity is ultimately going to lead to less profit. Do all investors and directors of the board actually realise that? Do they realise that infinite growth on a planet with finite resources is a physical impossibility?

So not only will it be harder to make profit feeling the increasing effects of climate change (like with the recent New York blizzard for example), but more damage will be likely to occur due to storms and other weather extremes. I’ll say it again. Less biodiversity is ultimately going to lead to less profit. Why do I say that? Why do I think it will lead to less profit? Read on..

So we know that there are other planets out there. We’re not living on the only planet. Planetary geologists like to compare the planet Earth with Mars and Venus. All of these three planets are very similar in size and yet they have distinctly different environments. These other planets show us what is possible. As of today, both of these other two planets are essentially uninhabitable. Yes we could put a person on Mars and they might survive for a while inside an artificially heated, pressurised and oxygenated atmosphere, but would they be self sufficient? The answer is no definitely not at first.

As is, nothing grows there on Mars. Nothing. Not even the most basic life form. So that means no food. Worse, there is no water. And worse still is that there is no oxygen.

What about Venus then? Well again, even if we could get there, even if we could live there, most businesses would be more viable back here on planet Earth than on the planet Venus. Wouldn’t they? Maybe the exception would be companies that need to utlise lots of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid.

Let’s take sulfuric acid. Let’s go with that example. Sure its useful to us here on Earth for all sorts of industrial purposes. So say we started to mine sulfuric acid on the planet venus. Even then we’d first need to get robots over there, wouldn’t we? And then we’d need to get the sulfuric acid back here on Earth.

But what are the transportations costs? How much fuel is burned? And doesn’t burning all that rocket fuel fuck up the Earth’s atmosphere even further? Well yes it does. What about if the Venus mining corporation had to pay carbon credits on all the tonnes of rocket fuel? And once there, how would the rocket get back to Earth? It would have to take enough fuel and liquid oxygen for the entire return journey. Because there is no oxygen on Venus. So now you tell me. Would it be a profitable enterprise?

Think about this (and keep in mind that I am one of the few scientists who have also set up my own business, so I do know a thing or two about profitability). Well in my professional scientific and business opinion, if you wanted to set up a business on the planet Mars, it would be more economically viable to locate your business at the South pole instead.

Why do I even bring this up here? What’s this got to do with rich people? What’s this got to do with money? Well, I don’t know of any businesses that are viable on either the planet Mars or Venus. Do you? Not even the most basic lemonade stand would work on the planet Mars or Venus. Would it? And rich people tend to forget this fact.

The newest space mission is estimated to cost $1.5 trillion dollars. That is a lot of investment money for anyone. So where is the ‘ROI’ going to come from that lot? Here’s what I wrote in another post of mine:

To me, it’s the most expensive & inefficient way to create the most boring food menu imagineable. Really. I mean, just think about how much those first few thousand lettuce leaves are going to cost! A billion dollars per lettuce leaf. That’s really great NASA. Thanks.

You see, if we had to pay for our oxygen supply, our water supply and our food supply down here on Earth like we would have to on Mars, then I’m sure that most businesses on Earth would become bankrupt within a matter of weeks. So economists (and rich people) are forgetting to take nature’s services into account. And when they do, I think they’ll realise that a forest is a very valuable place indeed.

 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 5
  • Next Page »