Macaque Attack in New Delhi

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070517.MONKEYS17/TPStory/?query=monkeys

Yesterday's Globe and Mail featured a story about a monkey invasion in New Delhi. I was immediately drawn to the story because of similar news items I've read involving elephants. Conflicts between elephants and humans have become so numerous in parts of Africa that these events are now referred to with the acronym HEC (human-elephant conflict) and are studied intensely by animal biologists and psychiatrists interested in post-traumatic stress disorder.

In the case of the monkeys - more specifically rhesus macaques - the nonhuman animals have been terrorizing (a much overused term, don't you think) humans and, in particular, important humans, that is, Members of Parliament. Basically, the city has been sprawling and nearby trees and forested areas where the monkeys lived have been destroyed or severely diminished. With nowhere to live and little food to scavenge for, monkeys have decided to encroach on the city. Many have been offered food by residents. What else is a homeless individual expected to do?

A priceless quote in the article, lays clearly the complete blindness to the cause of the situation and even to the meaning of words. Mr. Malaisamy is quoted as saying: "In the name of environmental protection, we cannot afford to remain silent spectators to this monkey menace in South Avenue, where several government offices and flats of MPs are located." He is talking about his own environmental protection...not the monkeys.

Nonhuman animals are losing their homes and being left without food. With the way most human homeless individuals are treated by society, I guess it is no surprise that monkeys are being treated as a menace rather than as victims. By no means does this justify the situation, if anything it makes clear some of the ways in which we all need to think about our relation to others and to the ways in which we all live in 'the' environment.

Since I'm out of time, I'll refer interested folks to two articles about elephants. The New York Times one is absolutely astonishing and is bound to become a classic.

About elephant breakdown / crack-up:

NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08elephant.html?ex=1179633600&en=f4f09e6e96b4dc62&ei=5070

Science Buss article:
http://www.smm.org/buzz/buzz_tags/charles_siebert

A Taste for Silence

It is totally normal to see teens and adults plugged into a portable music player in a plethora of situations. For instance, I have taken notice of couples walking hand-in-hand down the street each plugged into their own iPod. In another instance, I observed a young boy of 8 or 9 wearing his iPod during a Mother's Day breakfast at a restaurant he was dining at with his family. Now these two cases can bother you or not. They bother me. And they bother me perhaps for a reason that is not directly obvious or, at least, is not the expected one.

My concern does not lie in the fact that the people are not talking and interacting. Rather, it strikes me that these individuals (perhaps) cannot deal with the silence between conversation shifts, or the silence of waiting in a line (which, to be sure, isn't even absolute silence...but I won't get into soundscapes here), among other silences. (I won't bother here to take down the argument that these people just love music so much they need it at all times and in all places). What presses these individuals to have a constant musical soundtrack? Do they flee from their own thoughts? Do they flee from social interaction? These questions may seem to overestimate the valence of such a practice, but really, what does such a practice say about the state of the individual's comfort with themself or others? Furthermore, why is the practice verging on normalized? What does this say about the state of a society in which this is brushed off? I don't exactly know what it says...but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say something great.

Why not cultivate a taste for silence or enjoy your incidental soundscape au naturel? And then see where this takes you.

Revolution is just a t-shirt away

When I attended the Earth Day events in Ottawa on April 22nd this year, attendees were for the most part decked out in message clothing which I (charitably or not) took to be their way of silently demonstrating their position on and alignment with environmental concerns. For a while, I've been a little irked by the proliferation of (read: marketing of) message tees. For example, Warren's, a large chain store, is selling a tee with the message "Give a hoot, don't pollute." While this is a great message - and better still, a great practice - it's probably fairly easy to see where my concerns lie. For starters, I am hard-pressed to believe that a revolution will come about through consumption. We can't buy our way out of this ecological predicament. Although, NOT buying might do some good. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we can live outside the system or that we should never consume - indeed, when we need to buy things/replace exhausted items we should do so responsibly and out of necessity.

Basically, I am weary (meaning highly critical) of a mantra that espouses (when you read between the lines) that it is okay to conspicuously consume as long as the items are 'green' (choose from one of the following: organic, locally made, cruelty-free, fair trade, in support of a charity, etc). This sort of marketing strategy is dangerous and irresponsible and has been picked up by a plethora of companies.

Take for example Roots Canada. Walking to the coffee shop this morning I stopped in at Roots to look for something for a friend. Upon entering the store I noticed the publicity materials for a Green Campaign Roots has launched. The flat board poster was hailing me to buy an Eco Bag - a green leather purse. Hmm. Last time I checked leather is a pretty aweful by-product of murder and the tanning process, which enables people to have items made from animal skin that won't rot, is terrible for the environment. But let's put my radical environmental stance aside. Even if leather was not the by-product of violence and environmental damage I still need further explanation as to how buying this purse will contribute to environmental protection (or some other 'green' initiative), and how it has transformed me into a steward of the 'natural' environment.

So, conclusion...I do think all this 'green' awareness is wonderful and hopeful and suggestive, but I really do hope that it will not all be washed away, diluted, and co-opted into another great marketing scheme that ultimately continues to do a disservice to the Earth community.

Be my Facebook friend

So, I guess I missed the press release (which must have come out mid-March 2007) inviting the citizens of the world to join Facebook. In any case, somehow, in the space of 2 weeks I got dozens of invitations to be 'friends' with people I was A) already friends with; B) had once been friends with; and C) knew in passing and was 'friends' with.

As a social experiment I decided to join Facebook - and as I learned this was the reason for others joining. (Other top-rated reasons by joinees: peer pressure and intellectual curiosity). Of course, no one actually wants to join Facebook, they are simply doing it out of some sort of obligation (to friends, to family, to investigative or creative impulses).

What I am wondering is what all these Facebookers will do in their 'new'found community/ies? Will it be another place to gossip? To parade one's new duds/glamour shots? To critique and leave action to others? (Leaving aside the argument that critique and action are categorically in/different). To soft sell your 'friends' on your way of life?

More importantly: How long until Facebook fizzles? Or could it possibly become a progressive chaotic voice in the public sphere?...and explode.

Okay, I think that's enough unanswered questions for one post.