they just don't do fear mongering like they used to...

-In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine... law of the iroquois

                               *****************************

so, armageddon, who's up for it?

its been all the rage lately. take history channel's life without people, or ABC's earth 2100. both shows deal with armageddon situations in which it is basically the end of days for humans.

life without assumes that, all of a sudden, humans have disappeared off the face of the earth, not far in the future, not due to some sort of plague or catastrophic event that might also affect the world outside of human life. humans all just disappear. no corpse left behind, and the world evolves beyond us. natural cycles dissolve the remnants of our existence, and animals evolve to live in the wasteland we have left in our wake.

bad news for small dog owners, life without suggests that those animals will be the first species to go. what's more is that zoo animals will somehow escape their holding pens, find plenty of food and a suitable environment, and fertile mates abound, and they will breed at an uncontrollable rate, until their depleted populations are thriving once again.

hold your horse penises.

you're telling me that those pandas, who wouldn't breed if we put on barry white, lit scented candles, and actually, manually inserted the male's penis for him, are suddenly going to rip through the lexan walls of their pens and have an orgy?

ok, sure.

life without also suggests that some animals will quickly adapt new and awesome traits. most awesomely, flying house cats that hunt the skies from the hollowed out canyons of new york skyscrapers.

ok, that's pretty awesome. but what's the scientific basis for this? nothing. these people are merely postulating the possibilities and allowing history channel to sell it as the impending future. most likely the zoo animals will die of starvation without human intervention, and anything left trapped in a skyscraper will do the same. small dogs will probably go extinct after not too long, though. i'm with that.

but if this kind of crystal balling blows your skirt up, try reading the world without us, its the same basic principle, except it keeps it within the boundaries of actual science, and when you get to the parts about the Pacific Garbage Patch, or the radioactive waste burial ground in colorado, it'll really shake you. as cool as flying house cats are, i have my own imagination to ride into a fantasy scenario where humans are all dead and the robot unicorns and flying sharks battle for alpha species stature. and i don't know about you, but i'm kind of partial to delving into all the awesome species that have died off. i mean, sloths the size of elephants, wolves the size of horses, elk with horns bigger than their bodies, and those things really walked the earth. how cool is that? now i just sound like that kid with the bowl cut and the wolves airbrushed on his shirt.

now take earth 2100. forget the annoying style in which it's presented. that whole terribly animated story-line, that came off as a cross between grapes of wrath, are you there god, it's me, margaret, and the joy luck club. 2100 deals with a malthusian catastrophe, which is a situation in which humans have consumed so much of the planet's resources that we are forced to return to basic subsistence living, using only renewable resources, growing our own food, and harvesting for each meal, dealing with populations in a microcosmic manner so as to address only the most immediate needs of those we interact with personally. in essence, taking care of ourselves, for once.

2100 suggests that all us pot smoking queers and beaners in the west will fall into a dystopian, lawless, borderless, wild west thunderdome amidst the hellscape of the largest desert in the world: the new, improved, neo-mexican, death valley. as the timeline progresses from 2009 to 2100, our hero, lucy (get it, like the skeleton of the "first" human? i know transparency is key to the obama administration, but your metaphors don't have to be) road trips across america in what seems to be an suv from the 80's (very green of you, lucy) she finds that, the closer she gets to the midwest and the bible belt, the more progressive the people become (that makes sense). they've begun building utopias of clean energy, subsistence farming, living in space-age jetsons houses, and are single handedly saving the world (except for the lawless west, which i guess is left to eat itself alive) meanwhile al gore's at home in his undies, eating cheetos and jerking off to the nightly news. ultimately, she comes upon new york, which, in 2070 has become the most amazing, technologically advanced, peaceful, hard working, green, self-sufficient city in the history of the universe, perhaps the history of everything. are you surprised? new york is super cool. in fact one of the "experts" points out that new york has been geographically favored since the beginning of time. never mind that it's impossible to estimate what new york was like when it was a part of pangea (i hear the shopping was fabulous), and he goes on to tick off the ways it has been geographically favored, including its economy. i'm no expert, but is economy a feature of geography?

this show often talks to jared diamond, the writer of the book, and host of the documentary series guns, germs, and steel. if you want to dip into his brilliant mind, try reading or watching that, instead. in guns diamond explores the entirety of known history, and the ways in which weapons, disease, and metallurgy have shaped the way we live today. fascinating stuff, it is. in 2100 he is basically asked to validate the wild claims of the show by making one statement early on "the future is up for grabs" then they proceed to cut and paste his vast knowledge of human behavior throughout history into quotes that support the plot of ABC's not so distant future.

on a more realistic note, 2100 covers the "summit" that actually took place to deal with the hypothetical future, and how the world's leaders would handle the dawn of this dystopia. one major concern of many countries was that their way of life can no longer be an option. most especially the american way of life, but more generally, the western world (that means the US, canada, australia, and western europe. the developed anglo world). they pointed out that humans have to stop eating meat. it is far too stressful for the environment to sustain a carnivorous species with a population as sprawling as ours. we also have to face our materialism. no more can we say things like, "but i really like my '68 mustang!" no longer can we insist on the importance of a wide screen, flat screen, high def tv viewing experience (in case your confused, those tvs use on average 125% of the energy that a regular boob tube uses, and that little red or blue light that never goes off? that's because your tv never really goes off. unless you unplug it, it is drawing energy 24 hours a day, whether or not the little people are running around on the screen), as for the eastern world (which is not to say the rest of the world, but rather the major asian economies that are growing, and quickly, unlike the western economies, which are already slowly dying) they need to understand that, even though the western economies boomed with filthy industrial habits 100 years ago, the east must be conscious of their consumption and waste as their economies grow and they eventually become our malevolent overlords. a brief synopsis of this debate:

east: but you guys got to do it! no fair!

west: shut up, stupid!

east: well then you have to pay for it.

west: no way, why should we pay to make you our masters?

east: can you at least provide us with the technology? (a reasonable request)

west: uh... yeah. the thing about that is, those technologies belong to private companies. so, we're not gonna be doing that.

planet earth: KA-BOOOOM!

my brain: KA-BLOOEY!

what i find so interesting about all this doomsday fear mongering is how close to that dirty little secret they are willing to get without ever just admitting it: humans are a dysfunctional animal with no proper place in the natural equilibrium, unless our place is as the next major catastrophic event that extincts the majority of the species in a cleansing of the planet. if we are not the harbingers of the end of a life cycle we are one of nature's rare mistakes. now, some of the fear mongers have suggested that if we don't change our ways we will in fact be the next ice age, if you will. but most aren't as ready to get this close to an admission. some try to turn it around and suggest a positive purpose for human life. so often that purpose is "protector".

HUMANS: EARTH'S KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOR, RIDES IN ON GOLDEN FLYING STEED AND SLAYS THOSE WHO WOULD DO HER HARM!

funny thing about that. if humans weren't around to protect the planet, there wouldn't be anything to protect it from. we can only protect the planet from ourselves. 

um... i mean, go humans! you valiant protectors! oh how dreamy it was when you saved mother earth from the dodo bird plague!

the truth is, humans are consumers. we consume more than we give back, and we breed faster than we die.

while we're on the subject, take death. when we die, what do we do with ourselves? we might bury our bodies. when you get to that part of the world without us you'll be equally shocked. the manner in which we prepare our graves makes them the thing that will last longer than almost any other human structure. an exhumed body centuries from now will yield a concrete or lead box insulating a treated hardwood box which is itself insulating a metal box which holds inside...human soup. it is so impossible for the natural decay of the human body to occur inside a modern grave that essentially the enzymes and acids within our bodies digest us until we are nothing more than a pile of our own waste.

that's not how i roll, you say, i plan on being cremated. good choice. our entire body of nutrients and worm food and compost gets burned up to nothing but salty ash, then we dump it out somewhere where it will stifle the growth of whatever lives there, and the smoke from our burning body floats off into the ether and adds to the fun nastiness that the heartbeats we left behind get to inhale.

i think i got the black lung, pop.

nah, that's just nana, we all keep a little part of her right here, next to our heart, and more specifically, in our lungs, along with everyone else's nana and popo.

and what about death? we keep finding ways to put it off, but we don't seem to be able to wrangle our birth rate. there is an inherent problem with this in that, even if we find a way, as individuals, to live (we call it carbon neutral these days, but we have to think BIGGER) neutrally within the life cycle, as long as our population keeps growing faster than it dies, we are consuming more than we give back.

this malthusian catastrophe (now this is fear mongering) is inevitable unless we find a way to live, as individuals and as a population, neutrally, and within the harmony of natural equilibrium. but as much as i like overblown scary phrases like malthusian catastrophe, i think it's more appropriate to just call it what it is, a sharp turn toward forced common sense and harmonious living/the extinction of humans in a short but theatrically sweeeeeet implosion of humanity (its really fielder's choice on which one we get, or as diamond says, "the future is up for grabs").

you may point out that there are many species that don't seem necessary to the world, so why pick on humans? because, for one, those other species have found a way to live within the natural equilibrium, and for another, humans are the only species that engages in intercourse for pleasure (read: uncontrollable/unpredictable birthrate), wages war and violence on a large scale with its own kind (read: unstable psychology/unsound logic), uses currency to offset lack of subsistence skills (read: unfit for survival), has no natural predator or prey (read: existing outside the life cycle and food chain), uses tools for unnecessary tasks (read: has no greater cause with which to fill our days, nor an ability to enjoy free time without help), uses very explicit vocabulary and written language (read: can't sufficiently communicate within the boundaries of basic natural emotions), and consumes resources in a fashion that creates unnatural results that cannot be metabolized by any living thing currently sharing the planet with us.

now, sure, other animals exhibit some of these behaviors, but none, other than humans, exhibits all of them at once. and don't get me wrong, some of these behaviors i am all for.

sex for pleasure: yes. just wrap it up. we've come to far with medical science to have unwanted, or unplanned pregnancy, and an uncontrollable birthrate, and please, think of the future before you decide to have a gaggle of children, and think of all those children available for adoption before you decide they all have to come out of you.

war and violence: i'm out.

currency: i want out, but it keeps pulling me back in. so i do the best i can; i try to pursue a knowledge of as many necessary life skills as i can. yea for libraries, the world's nerdy, loser friend!

no natural predator or prey: where's the fun in that? i don't want to be a predator, really. i don't have the stomach or physical traits to take down a zebra with my teeth, but i'm always down for a good test of my fight or flight instincts.

unnecessary tools: i take them on a tool by tool basis. musical instruments i can appreciate. the bouncer at the carlos club? that's a tool i could do without.

explicit language: of course (i'm writing this aren't i?). but from time to time we need to make sure we are using it to express those basic human emotions, and not just how cool it is that i've "got lamborghini doors on my escalade low-pros so low look like i'm ridin on blades", or confusing sentiments of love with warnings "to the bitch that said i shot some shit up out of my dick, now she sick: she better lay low" (i'm not anti rap, don't worry, i actually like both of those songs, and hagar belting out "i can't drive 55" or spencer from the hills boasting "i don't volunteer, bitches, i get paid!" don't exactly tug at my heartstrings, either).

consuming without giving back: i'm out. we need to consume, obviously. all species do, really. but we need to do it in moderation, and in equilibrium with the rest of the planet, and we need to make sure that we give back only things that the planet can deal with. it's not something that i already do, and maybe it won't be something i can achieve before i die (especially if that mountain lion on my porch finally catches me. i'm still too quick for him. or perhaps allowing him to catch me would an instant switch to perfect equilibrium), but it certainly can't hurt if we all tried to achieve that goal in our lifetime, because if we try for perfection, there's a pretty good chance that we will make, at the very least, some good, noticeable progress.

i'm sure your kids will really appreciate it if they didn't have to live in a world where everyone is still sucking new york's dick, and the west has turned into the barren futurescape from the nuclear holocaust scene in terminator 2. and i bet we can do a pretty good job of not handing that down to them if we all just stop listening to the fear mongers (like me) and tried a little harder to

...live neutrally.

suggested reading:

1) the world without us alan weisman

2) guns, germs, and steel jared diamond

3) utopia thomas more

4) the great law of the iroquois

5) the road cormac mccarthy

suggested watching:

1) guns, germs, and steel

2) life without people

3) planet earth

4) earth 2100

5) the mad max series

6) the terminator series

7) wall-E (twice in a row, i guess you really have to watch it, now)

suggested participation:

1) public transportation/critical mass/riding or walking as a way to get from A to B

2) beach/park clean ups

3) dump the super duper crystal clear flat screen (they have heinous problems with gentle color gradations, anyway, you just don't notice yet, because they haven't found a way to fix it, at which point they will sell you a new tv that doesn't have that problem)

4) CFLs (efficient light bulbs. they are selling for 4 for a dollar at some places these days, pretty damn affordable), and why not try just keeping your lights off until the sky goes dark? no need to keep the wires buzzing simply for dusk, or while you're in the bathroom in the morning.

5) public libraries (they've got so many interesting books on so many topics, and its free, just stay away from my libraries, i hate when they don't have the book i want)

the circus is getting mixed messages. come on corporate america, do you want to abuse my natural voraciousness for blind consumerism, or don't you?

i just want to make sure everybody is clear on this issue: big business owns network television.

big business also makes deals with the government to get leniency on certain things. for example: the government requires that a certain amount of air time be given to public awareness of topical issues, free of charge. however, if law and order:suspect abuse unit just happens to air an episode where one of the characters is a pot smoking teenager who gets kidnapped because of a drug deal gone bad, or an underage girl who has unprotected sex and get AIDS, then a certain amount of that PSA time gets absolved because that show would be depicting people who do things the government doesnt like, and consequently suffering for it. 

similarly, if a major global polluter, i.e. GE, who happens to own NBC (and while we are on the subject, no GE didnt buy NBC, GE created NBC because when NBC was created GE's bread and butter was radios and televisions, so GE decided they would put something on those radios and televisions to give the consumer a reason to buy them. so yes, TV is and always has existed for the purpose of selling you shit you dont need) anyway, back to the major global polluter. lets stick with the GE example, if GE happens to need to meet a certain quota vis a vi a decrease in pollution that they can't nearly meet while still raping your pocketbooks, they might, let's just say, offer up 150 hours of "green TV" on their network affiliates. things like episodes of my name is earl, the office, and 30 rock rife with hackneyed plot points involving "going green" and liberal environmentalist guest stars. for doing this GE is most likely receiving massive amounts of carbon points from the government, after factoring in these free points, and then pointing out that al gore showed up on a very special episode of 30 rock, and sponsorship priority was given to toyota hybrid commercials, GE and NBC look like golden gods in the eyes of ignorant masses the world over.

allow me to take this moment to point out the overwhelming amount of evidence piling up in the case of al gore: egomaniacal trend whore (i dont care how ornery people get when the weather heats up, being an advocate against global warming has nothing to do with world peace, give the nobel prize back you fat a-hole, and take off the green tie, its purpose is completely transparent and you look like a dillhole). allow me to also point out the irony here: the irony of al gore showing up on 30 rock and "explaining" how great a program block of "green tv" would be for the world, without actually explaining how it works in GE's favor rather than that of the environment, and the irony of a television program block dedicated to "going green" sponsored by a car company and broadcast on networks owned by one of the largest energy conglomerates in the world. i don't care how good the gas mileage is, it's still a car. this is like getting a safe sex message on late night cinemax from a company that makes sheepskin condoms.

and while we're on the subject of mixed messages from big business, don't be fooled when you see a chevron commercial pleading for everyone to "use less".

what are we? simple?

chevron doesn't want us to use less. hey everyone, i'm a butcher and i sure wish there were more vegetarians in the world! doesn't quite sound right, does it? they want us to use less of the other guys' stuff. and when we do use, they want us to think about how "progressive and selfless" chevron is, so, perhaps, we'll go to one of their stations to fill up because they are such a noble, earth-first company.

bullshit.

now, i know you are all intelligent people. i just needed to vent my abhorrence for the blind ignorant faith with which the world seems to be jumping head-up-ass first into this whole going green trend. it's not that i'm anti-environment. it's not that i dont believe in global warming. i'm very much pro-environment. i do believe in global warming, i just think that every time we see a comercial for some "green" product, or hear al gore spewing from his doughy pie hole, we don't have to jump all over it like its gospel, slap a "he's not MY president" bumper sticker on it, and brag about how savvy were being.

you want to start being part of the solution? stop consuming... everything. i don't care if its a new prius, 150 hours of so-called green television, or an anti-establishment bumper sticker, if you want bragging rights, then you need to just stop.

and to veer slightly off topic here, as for your "liberal" bumper stickers... 

take them off. "i never thought i'd miss nixon"? really? you miss nixon? anything to do with ending the war? is that all you have to say? how about we get all those soldiers back here who are just begging to god to come home alive and well, and see if they think that a $2 bumper sticker (plastered to the bumper of a car that runs on the very thing they are getting shot at and killed to protect. the very thing that puts them in situations where they have to decide if they can kill another human being) was enough effort to get them out of harm's way. "he's not my president"? isn't he? are you canadian? oh, then he is your president. i don't like him any more than you do, but he is our president. maybe you didn't vote for him, i sure didn't. but we as a collective country did. twice. if you don't like it, stand up and do something about it. say something about it. don't quietly go about your life placating yourself with pathetic sloganeering.

alrighty, im done being a grizzled old man.

in conlcusion, we all do things that hurt the environment. but that's life, we are a needy species of microcephalous idiots (my favorite new phrase), and we demand more of the planet then the planet has to offer. but unless we are all going to march single file off a cliff, which i don't recommend (unless you really want to...), we have to accept this. and yes we should do whatever we can to lessen the damage, but maybe jumping on every little trend we see on tv without asking questions isn't the answer.

the circus doesn't get nobel prize. puts the F U in "E for effurt". am i two smert or two dum?

i feel like the nobel prize committee website is mocking me for being so much stupider than the committee and its savvy team of stealthy ninja-like laureates (in truth the laureates are, communally, so obese, ancient, or generally feeble of body that they make a texas elks lodge meeting look like the romanian olympic gymnastics team).

i mean all i wanted to know was when they were going to award the ... umm ... awards.

okay so im no doris lessing, but fuck me, she wrote like a bazillion books, (and im willing to bet none of them included the word bazillion. suck on that doris lessing, you wrinkly old muppet! i have the capacity to use a word and you don't) and look at the woman, i think she might already be dead, she looks like a potato if you let it sit around too long and it starts growing buds, if we dont give her the award now, we may not get another chance. so, doris lessing, in honor of the fact that youve written like 6 books a year since the invention of the printed word (all of which have excellent names by the way, except one called Particularly Cats, written in 1967, which i can only assume was the year she realized her chances of getting her hands on some genuine human penis had finally reached zero, and it was gonna be all cats and canasta from here on out), you win by sheer volume of work.

but i digress here. where was i? oh... i wanted to know when the awards would take place (ok, so i only wanted to know this because i heard muse was going to play the ceremony. regardless...). as i stared at the 10,000 piece 3-D jig-saw puzzle that is the nobel committee web site, my eyes were drawn to the link for the nobel peace prize. the headline of said link promised to answer my most nagging question, what does the fattest bastard himself, al gore, making global warming a popular cause have anything to do with world peace? (and if that gets you a nobel prize, why isn't ed begley jr driving around in an electric car made completely out of nobel peace prizes?) so i clicked, and was greeted with a page which was essentially useless to me aside from a second link to a video which would answer my question...

error: image stream not found

this video requires real player or windows. download now?

CANCEL

i have neither. but i do have a comment, i hope your not suprised: how can the smartest people in the world as of 2007 not format a video that also runs in quicktime? i also have a concern: does this mean that the most important discoveries, inventions, theories and philosophies of 2007 are being entrusted to the hands of vista? from my understanding you can't even trust iTunes in the hands of vista, let alone embryonic stem cell targeting, or mechanism design theory.

perhaps linux would be more to the laureates' liking? it does have that adorable penguin logo which would stay consistent with the you’re-not-as-smart-as-us-so-we'll-talk-to-you-like-a-six-year-old theme of their website. or should we just really make it al gore’s year and go back to ARPANet? did you know he invented that right after he invented the capacity to know about global warming? and isn’t a widely accepted sterotype (one which i dont embrace) that smart people don’t learn by watching, they learn by reading? so why couldn’t they simply write an article which would divulge the oh so desired facts to my salivating brain? after all they do have the worlds greatest writers at their disposal, or was doris lessing too busy finishing her latest novel, Possibly Geritol?

eventually i would find that articulate information, under a small print link called "information for the public" (.pdf file? why, you bastards? why?) which is included for each award. i found it under the award for physics, which is apparently being awarded to a sleazier version of andy garcia 

and my high school biology teacher if he were homeless, for inventing magnetic technology for reading CDs. yes, in a world where we are fast making CDs obsolete, the prize for physics goes to some guys who reinvented the discman.

rife with enough ammo for a rave, i decided to explore further, and discovered in the right hand panel a bevy of wacky games and puzzles accompanied by hilarious and adorable clip art of a rubber ducky and a sloppily scribbled question mark indicating you may not understand the events which will ensue if you should be such a brave little slugger and click on this link. i also found a link to "the nobel prize on youtube", and when i was through watching that vid, i checked out the related video, "some chick awkwardly reads bertrand russel by the lake and then spirals into freaky antichristian raving about how we're all going to burn in hell, and now i’m going to turn on all the lights in the house", ok so that’s not what it was called, but its a pretty accurate description of what went down. yes this is all very distinguished and sophisticated. but more importantly were the site’s self proclaimed highlights. the schedule for the ceremonies (finally!), a slide show of alfred nobel signing his last will and testament, a "laser party challenge game" and a tasty tidbit about what happens when you put metal in an MRI scanner (a topic explained more thoroughly by an episode of mythbusters long ago, way to be on the cutting edge, nobel). after loading frankenstein into the MRI machine with comically tragic results i decided that i, yes i, dave newlands, was too sophisticated for the nobel committee website.

all in all i felt more intellectual pointing out the differences between seemingly identical cartoons and helping slylock fox solve the mystery of the missing toothbrush in the highlights magazine at my dentists office.

in conclusion, always try to tune in to the nobel prize ceremony, if only to watch sweden make a mockery of progress. and sweden, just because you can give an award in each category every year, doesn’t mean you have to.

and one more thing: hire someone from your distinguished list of laureates to upgrade your web site. i may be no gallant, but i'm certainly not that goofus.

excelsior!