This originally appeared a few months ago. Now, with the recent shootings in Arizona and Tea Partiers again bringing up changing the 14th Amendment, this is a pretty relevant topic.
Anti-illegal immigrant groups have been talking about changing the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so that when people who are in the country illegally have children, those children are not U.S. citizens. As with anything else related to illegal immigrants - "undocumented residents", if you're more sympathetic to their plight - this is a very controversial proposal. It's also unlikely to get very far any time soon, which even its supporters admit. Still, I think it makes a lot of sense. Further, it reminds me of the situation with another controversial Amendment: the Second, which protects (or not, depending on your beliefs) the right to individual gun ownership. Here's what I mean.
Everyone agrees that illegal (undocumented) immigrants are a big problem. The disagreement mostly centers around whether we need to make it easier for people to enter and stay in the country - essentially an immigrant-friendly view, or that we need to make it harder for them to illegally enter and then stay in the country - the anti-illegal immigrant view. Please note that nobody claims to be against immigrants coming here legally, although Americans have long tended to not welcome foreigners of any status, and that tendency doesn't seem to have disappeared yet.
Among the problems that the anti-illegal immigrants ("antis" from now on) point to is how many illegals have children here who, under our Constitution, are automatically U.S. citizens. This creates all kinds of problems, not the least of which is: if mom and dad are deported, what happens to their U.S. citizen kids? The scale of the problem is huge, as many pregnant women apparently sneak into the country specifically so that their child is born here, gaining that prized U.S. citizen status. The Pew Hispanic Center recently reported that one in every twelve children born in this country was born to a mother who is in the country illegally, and other groups, including the antis, agree that number is about right.
But you can't change the 14th Amendment, top lawmakers say. Citizenship for those born in the U.S. is among the most sacred of our constitutional rights, and if we start fiddling with that right, which other rights will be next? Those proposing a change to the Amendment, they say, are merely playing politics, trying to win the antis' votes.
I'm not convinced.
When contemplating the Constitution and its Amendments, a crucial element is always: what did its authors have in mind? The related, implied consideration is: given what they had in mind, would they have written it the same way today as back then? The Second Amendment illustrates that point. Whether or not the Founding Fathers meant it to protect individual gun rights or merely the right of militias to own guns, as the two sides argue endlessly these days, the fact is that today "the right to bear arms" is a much more complicated proposition than it was 220 years ago.
As a strong supporter of the right to gun ownership by individuals, I nevertheless agree with the need for reasonable limitations on that right. Machine guns, grenade launchers, shoulder mounted surface-to-air missiles - could the Fathers ever have imagined such heinous weapons? If so, would they have felt that everyone - every one of us - should have unlimited access to those? Even convicted violent criminals? Avowed terrorists? Mentally unstable postal workers? What would the Founding Fathers think about people going into a McDonald's or a school or their workplace and shooting up innocent people with automatic weapons? What would they think about what happened in Oklahoma City in 1995 or on 9/11 in 2001? Could they have even imagined all the types of "arms" available today, and the horrific ways that twisted people use them?
It is reasonable, IMO, to think that the Fathers would have written the Second Amendment differently if they were to write it today. Or at least, since they tended to keep the Amendments short and simple, agree that the courts could clarify that certain limitations do not violate the Amendment's intent. Limitations on certain types of weapons that Joe Everyman can own, restrictions on certain types of people having access to guns - it seems to me that they would have wanted that in today's world. I don't think such limitations go against what they had in mind, even while I recognize my more conservative friends' fear that once you limit certain types of gun ownership, you're on a slippery slope that can lead to a near total gun ownership ban. They've got a point, but I still think the responsible and rational course of action, consistent with what the Founding Fathers had in mind, would be to have some limits on the right to bear arms. We do, after all, need laws that deal with the realities of today, not of those 220 years ago.
Let's consider the Fourteenth Amendment from a similar perspective. Following the Civil War, the states ratified the proposition that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." This, of course, was primarily about making former black slaves, as well as Native Americans (Indians), U.S. citizens. There was no such thing as an "illegal-immigrant" in the U.S. at that time. In 1868, when the Amendment was added to the Constitution, huge swaths of the country were still unpopulated and immigrants were actively encouraged to come to America with few if any restrictions. In fact, the first immigration law in the U.S. wasn't even passed until 1875. Obviously, the implications of granting citizenship to the children of people who had illegally entered the country was the farthest thing from anyone's mind back in 1868.
Fast forward to modern times and ask yourself: would the Amendment's authors, and the state legislators that ratified it, have wanted it to be abused the way that it is today? If those legislators could see the situation today, with all the problems of illegal immigration and with people purposely breaking the laws of the U.S. in order to have their child born here, do you think they would want that child to be rewarded with U.S. citizenship? Obviously, I don't.
I still have mixed feelings about what to do with illegal immigrants overall, as my earlier writings on the topic indicate. But on this one small issue, it seems like there is an obvious and simple answer. Why should we not adjust the Amendment to reflect our modern realities? As with the right to bear arms, our government has an obligation to operate under laws that make sense given today's realities, not in the world as it was 150 years ago. We do, after all, pride ourselves on being a nation of laws; requiring that someone be here in line with our laws in order to get citizenship - how is that a problem? Perhaps something as simple as adding the word "legally" in front of the phrase "born" in the Amendment, although it would probably have to be more like "born to a mother who was legally in the country at the time" - or whatever.
How, exactly, would this modification detract from the Constitution, the rights of legitimate American citizens, etc? It's a huge stretch, IMO, to say that such a minor, simple, and logical change sets a precedent for weakening our Constitution and our constitutional rights. Similarly, the answer to those who say: well, if we change this Amendment, what happens to those who were born here under illegal circumstances before the change? That's a simple one: they are grandfathered (exempt from the change), just as people are usually grandfathered when any new law changes the rules.
As this site's title reminds us, things usually aren't as simple as we think they are. So maybe I'm missing something here. One problem may be that we really don't want to start tinkering with the wording of Amendments; changing Amendments is a serious and difficult process. Well fine; just as with the Second Amendment, we could simply allow the courts to rule that not granting citizenship to children of parents of illegal status doesn't violate the intent of the Amendment. Because, if it's OK to tweak the 2nd Amendment to fit the times, then why doesn't the same apply to the 14th? What's good for the Goose.... as they say.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Less Spending on the Elderly?
Like most people, I really love my mom and dad. Every morning, as part of my daily prayers, I give thanks for the great parents that they were. Mom stayed at home to take care of us, was deeply involved in our Boy Scout and Girl Scout activities, and was PTA president, for example. Dad was a gentle giant, strong but quiet. The outdoors and baseball - those were his two great interests, and he did his best to teach me about them, and much more. From both mom and dad, we learned values: honesty, hard work, thriftiness, respect, the importance of education. We didn't have much money, but we wanted for nothing that really mattered. Mom and dad did everything a person could have expected from good parents.
Dad passed away a few years ago, after an ugly battle with lung and brain cancer that - in the end - had him in diapers and constantly saying cruel, hurtful things. He was in great pain, mentally and physically. That wasn't the real him, and not the way we wanted to remember him. Mom's 85 now, and not doing so well. Dad really spoiled her, always took care of everything, always looking out for her. With dad gone, mom's gradually gotten worse. Her physical problems have increased, and now she's having a lot of mental issues. She's become rather childlike in some ways, more selfish, but also more paranoid, stingy, and very, very forgetful. It's getting more and more difficult to care for her, even as she refuses to go into a retirement home or get full-time help in her own home.
It's not a pretty picture in other words, and my sister and I wonder how we're going to deal with it all if she lives another 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 years. Surely it won't get much easier.... The other part of this, though, is the realization that we're heading in that direction ourselves. Looking at what happened to dad and is happening to mom, we can't help but wonder: "is that us in a few more years?". Yikes! We all want to go out like my grampa did: 86 years old, sitting on a bench waiting for the bus to take him to my cousin's house for some fresh pies she just made. Apparently he had an aneurysm or something, and just plopped over dead. Until then, he'd been living on his own, healthy and with his wits about him. But based on mom and dad's experiences, we know that we can't count on such a pleasant passing.
So it's not that I'm unaware of the problems that old people have. Nor am I someone who doesn't value the elderly and their contributions to society. And finally, at age 58, I'm on the cusp of elder-hood myself, and obviously have a personal interest in what happens to senior citizens. But I think we pay way too much money on their (and soon - my) health care, and that's a huge problem for our country. It's a problem because the U.S. is in terrible financial shape and it's getting worse, a big portion of the problem is tied to spending on the elderly, and if we don't do something drastic - and soon - we may well end up with something that makes the Great Recession of 2008-2010 look like the good old days. Mostly, it'll be the young who suffer the most from all this.
Our federal government's deficit will approach $15 trillion in the next year or so, a number so huge that we can scarcely comprehend it. Interest payments on that amount, which is certain to rise even more in future years, is around $600 billion per year. That's $600 billion that can't be spent on education, defense, better roads, health coverage, etc. - each year. Yet even $15 trillion doesn't tell the whole story, as state and local governments, corporations, and individuals are in debt by another $45 trillion or so (http://grandfather-economic-report.com/debt-nat.htm). Total annual cost for all U.S. debt? Something like $3 trillion in interest, per year. Problem is: those numbers are headed higher and are reaching the point where the U.S. system as we know it may no longer be viable. You think unemployment, outsourcing, outdated infrastructure, home ownership, and the cost of a college education are bad now? Stick around.
The elderly's role in this, which by the way is NOT the same thing as saying their blame for this, is based on a number of factors that all result in them getting a larger and larger share of the national "pie". According to the Cato Institute, spending on the elderly was about 24% of all federal spending in 1980. Twenty years later, it was 35%, and is estimated to be 43% in 2010. As Cato puts it "The elderly will elbow aside all other citizens as they seize the bulk of the federal budget" (http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/13279.pdf) Just to be clear what this means, they also said that "High consumption by the elderly (will be) funded by the young". Now the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank with its own bias and agenda, but everybody else seems to say much the same thing on this issue.
Most of this spending on the elderly is on health care and/or is a result of improved health care over the decades. Because of better living conditions and greatly improved (and very expensive) health care, people are living much longer now. Because of that, they're surviving long enough to receive many more years of Social Security payments, and have many more years to benefit from Medicare and Medicaid than those programs were designed to support. Meanwhile, overall health costs have soared astronomically, so those additional years of health care for elders get increasingly more expensive. Cutting back on elderly health care spending won't solve the nation's debt problems, but along with limiting other old age benefits, it's a good and absolutely necessary start.
The earlier reference to bigger piece of the pie is a way to refer to the basic truism of economics: there's not enough for everybody to have everything they want, so society needs to make choices. It would be an over-simplification to say that we can spend either on the young, or on the elderly. But sadly, that's kind of what it boils down to. I say the elderly have had their turn, and we ought to focus less on extending their lives even more, and spend our money more on other things. And remember - I say this as a loving son of an elderly woman, and someone who will be elderly himself in a few years.
* * * * * * * * * *
The other part of this is there's a ton of money being spent on keeping sick old people alive longer than Nature intended or, in many cases, they themselves want. As a result, we get people who are 80 or 90 years old who've had great lives, but are just falling apart physically; it's their time to go. But we don't let go and instead insist on trying every medication, procedure, or operation to keep them going another month, another year. Billions spent every year just on that kind of medical care; billions that, if we had unlimited money and the elderly themselves wanted it, would be great to spend. But we don't, and in many cases, they don't.
My wife's mom Katy is a good example. Katy was a truly wonderful woman and an even better mother. She made it into her 90s and, naturally, started having more and more medical problems. A nurse in her younger years, she knew a lot about various conditions, treatments and so forth. In her final years, she didn't like getting hauled off to the hospital, getting poked and prodded, awakened every hour throughout the night, etc. She'd say "please don't take me to the hospital; I'm tired, just let God take me if he wants me." But nobody listened, and so Katy did live an extra few years. Years that were full of pain and hospital stays, years that cost many tens of thousands of dollars. She was so happy when the doctors said there was nothing else they could do. Katy knew she could finally be at rest; they gave her heavier and heavier doses of morphine, and she just peacefully slipped away. Finally.
I don't want to go out like that. Or in constant pain, wearing diapers, with no hope of recovering. I don't want to shuffle around in an old-folks home either, just waiting to die. But yet that's what I probably have to face, with our current attitude that it's quantity (number of years) that matters more than quality (of life). Not that I advocate the old Eskimo solution: give an old person a little food and then just leave them in the wilderness to die of cold. But at least in that model, society could use their resources where they'd do the most good (on the young and the strong), and any suffering was short-lived - in some ways a more humane and sensible solution than what we do now, IMO.
My wife and I, we're in perfect agreement. Neither one of us wants to end up in diapers, stuck in a hospital bed, or shuffling around drooling in an old folks home. We've made a pact; if one of us gets to that point (or ideally, before that point), the other has to take them out. Yup. Drive them up to the mountains and finish them off. Then finish themselves off, because society doesn't condone assisted suicide yet, and neither of us is going to spend their last years without the other, and in prison to boot. But don't get me wrong: we love life and really hope we have another 20 or 30 years of good living ahead of us. But if not...we've each had nearly 60 wonderful years of life, and if we were to die tomorrow, we're OK with it; we've had a great ride!
Of course as a society we're much too civilized to do anything like what the Eskimos did now, or what the Streblers have promised each other. Besides, lots of people want to live as long as possible, no matter what.
I'm not offering any specific solutions. It's a very, very messy business indeed, deciding how to cut back on health care for old people so that younger people have their chance at a decent life. But I'm saying we need to start thinking about this; it shouldn't be a taboo subject that nobody will consider. Because if we don't, the country's entire future is in grave danger.
Dad passed away a few years ago, after an ugly battle with lung and brain cancer that - in the end - had him in diapers and constantly saying cruel, hurtful things. He was in great pain, mentally and physically. That wasn't the real him, and not the way we wanted to remember him. Mom's 85 now, and not doing so well. Dad really spoiled her, always took care of everything, always looking out for her. With dad gone, mom's gradually gotten worse. Her physical problems have increased, and now she's having a lot of mental issues. She's become rather childlike in some ways, more selfish, but also more paranoid, stingy, and very, very forgetful. It's getting more and more difficult to care for her, even as she refuses to go into a retirement home or get full-time help in her own home.
It's not a pretty picture in other words, and my sister and I wonder how we're going to deal with it all if she lives another 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 years. Surely it won't get much easier.... The other part of this, though, is the realization that we're heading in that direction ourselves. Looking at what happened to dad and is happening to mom, we can't help but wonder: "is that us in a few more years?". Yikes! We all want to go out like my grampa did: 86 years old, sitting on a bench waiting for the bus to take him to my cousin's house for some fresh pies she just made. Apparently he had an aneurysm or something, and just plopped over dead. Until then, he'd been living on his own, healthy and with his wits about him. But based on mom and dad's experiences, we know that we can't count on such a pleasant passing.
So it's not that I'm unaware of the problems that old people have. Nor am I someone who doesn't value the elderly and their contributions to society. And finally, at age 58, I'm on the cusp of elder-hood myself, and obviously have a personal interest in what happens to senior citizens. But I think we pay way too much money on their (and soon - my) health care, and that's a huge problem for our country. It's a problem because the U.S. is in terrible financial shape and it's getting worse, a big portion of the problem is tied to spending on the elderly, and if we don't do something drastic - and soon - we may well end up with something that makes the Great Recession of 2008-2010 look like the good old days. Mostly, it'll be the young who suffer the most from all this.
Our federal government's deficit will approach $15 trillion in the next year or so, a number so huge that we can scarcely comprehend it. Interest payments on that amount, which is certain to rise even more in future years, is around $600 billion per year. That's $600 billion that can't be spent on education, defense, better roads, health coverage, etc. - each year. Yet even $15 trillion doesn't tell the whole story, as state and local governments, corporations, and individuals are in debt by another $45 trillion or so (http://grandfather-economic-report.com/debt-nat.htm). Total annual cost for all U.S. debt? Something like $3 trillion in interest, per year. Problem is: those numbers are headed higher and are reaching the point where the U.S. system as we know it may no longer be viable. You think unemployment, outsourcing, outdated infrastructure, home ownership, and the cost of a college education are bad now? Stick around.
The elderly's role in this, which by the way is NOT the same thing as saying their blame for this, is based on a number of factors that all result in them getting a larger and larger share of the national "pie". According to the Cato Institute, spending on the elderly was about 24% of all federal spending in 1980. Twenty years later, it was 35%, and is estimated to be 43% in 2010. As Cato puts it "The elderly will elbow aside all other citizens as they seize the bulk of the federal budget" (http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/13279.pdf) Just to be clear what this means, they also said that "High consumption by the elderly (will be) funded by the young". Now the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank with its own bias and agenda, but everybody else seems to say much the same thing on this issue.
Most of this spending on the elderly is on health care and/or is a result of improved health care over the decades. Because of better living conditions and greatly improved (and very expensive) health care, people are living much longer now. Because of that, they're surviving long enough to receive many more years of Social Security payments, and have many more years to benefit from Medicare and Medicaid than those programs were designed to support. Meanwhile, overall health costs have soared astronomically, so those additional years of health care for elders get increasingly more expensive. Cutting back on elderly health care spending won't solve the nation's debt problems, but along with limiting other old age benefits, it's a good and absolutely necessary start.
The earlier reference to bigger piece of the pie is a way to refer to the basic truism of economics: there's not enough for everybody to have everything they want, so society needs to make choices. It would be an over-simplification to say that we can spend either on the young, or on the elderly. But sadly, that's kind of what it boils down to. I say the elderly have had their turn, and we ought to focus less on extending their lives even more, and spend our money more on other things. And remember - I say this as a loving son of an elderly woman, and someone who will be elderly himself in a few years.
* * * * * * * * * *
The other part of this is there's a ton of money being spent on keeping sick old people alive longer than Nature intended or, in many cases, they themselves want. As a result, we get people who are 80 or 90 years old who've had great lives, but are just falling apart physically; it's their time to go. But we don't let go and instead insist on trying every medication, procedure, or operation to keep them going another month, another year. Billions spent every year just on that kind of medical care; billions that, if we had unlimited money and the elderly themselves wanted it, would be great to spend. But we don't, and in many cases, they don't.
My wife's mom Katy is a good example. Katy was a truly wonderful woman and an even better mother. She made it into her 90s and, naturally, started having more and more medical problems. A nurse in her younger years, she knew a lot about various conditions, treatments and so forth. In her final years, she didn't like getting hauled off to the hospital, getting poked and prodded, awakened every hour throughout the night, etc. She'd say "please don't take me to the hospital; I'm tired, just let God take me if he wants me." But nobody listened, and so Katy did live an extra few years. Years that were full of pain and hospital stays, years that cost many tens of thousands of dollars. She was so happy when the doctors said there was nothing else they could do. Katy knew she could finally be at rest; they gave her heavier and heavier doses of morphine, and she just peacefully slipped away. Finally.
I don't want to go out like that. Or in constant pain, wearing diapers, with no hope of recovering. I don't want to shuffle around in an old-folks home either, just waiting to die. But yet that's what I probably have to face, with our current attitude that it's quantity (number of years) that matters more than quality (of life). Not that I advocate the old Eskimo solution: give an old person a little food and then just leave them in the wilderness to die of cold. But at least in that model, society could use their resources where they'd do the most good (on the young and the strong), and any suffering was short-lived - in some ways a more humane and sensible solution than what we do now, IMO.
My wife and I, we're in perfect agreement. Neither one of us wants to end up in diapers, stuck in a hospital bed, or shuffling around drooling in an old folks home. We've made a pact; if one of us gets to that point (or ideally, before that point), the other has to take them out. Yup. Drive them up to the mountains and finish them off. Then finish themselves off, because society doesn't condone assisted suicide yet, and neither of us is going to spend their last years without the other, and in prison to boot. But don't get me wrong: we love life and really hope we have another 20 or 30 years of good living ahead of us. But if not...we've each had nearly 60 wonderful years of life, and if we were to die tomorrow, we're OK with it; we've had a great ride!
Of course as a society we're much too civilized to do anything like what the Eskimos did now, or what the Streblers have promised each other. Besides, lots of people want to live as long as possible, no matter what.
I'm not offering any specific solutions. It's a very, very messy business indeed, deciding how to cut back on health care for old people so that younger people have their chance at a decent life. But I'm saying we need to start thinking about this; it shouldn't be a taboo subject that nobody will consider. Because if we don't, the country's entire future is in grave danger.
Job Loss in America
This essay is basically an update or addition to "America Reaps What it Sows", written a couple of years ago and archived on this blog. What's new, and the focus of this particular blog, is the plight of upper-middle class Americans who've lost their jobs in our Great Recession.
A great many educated, skilled, upper-middle class Americans have lost their jobs in the last couple of years, and are having a hell of a time finding anything even close to as good as their previous jobs. The TV show "60 Minutes" did a heart-wrenching story on this recently. Here are people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s who did everything right. They got college degrees, even Masters' and PhDs, and went to work for big, prospering companies, and moved up the ladder over the years. These folks were experienced professionals, middle managers earning $100,000, $150,000, $250,000 a year - and they had earned it!
They also earned the lifestyle that came with the territory. The 2500 sq. ft. house in a good neighborhood, the nice cars and SUVs, dining out a couple of times a week, kids going to expensive colleges, regular vacations to Hawaii and Europe - the good life. And now they're losing it all because after many months of unemployment, where a job at Target is the best they can find, their savings is gone, they're about to lose their homes, and they don't know what to do. And it's not their fault; they did everything right!
Or did they? I think maybe not. My thesis is that probably 80% or more of these folks bear a fair share of responsibility for their current situation. The vast majority, I contend, could have and should have done things differently, and wouldn't be in this pickle if they had. And this is more than just "Monday morning quarterbacking", where you look back with hindsight and smugly predict the past.
It is only prudent to live within your means, to save 10% or more of what you earn. This is not revolutionary thinking, this is common advice and has been for many generations. I'm willing to bet that most of these people didn't do that and instead - like most Americans - spent nearly 100% of their growing incomes, if not 105% or 110% (by racking up debt on their credit cards and borrowing against the value of their homes).
It is only prudent to be concerned about the possibility of an economic slowdown or depression, and to take steps to "recession proof" your career. Here's what I mean. Recessions happen, sometimes they're very ugly, and any educated person should know that. They should also know that some jobs are more secure than others. On the contrary, I suspect that the majority of these people felt their days of worrying about their careers ended long ago: they got the good jobs, now all they needed to do was put in their 30 or 35 years and then live happily ever after. But that wasn't very realistic.
In my own case, I left a lucrative career in the investments business years ago because, in part, I saw dark clouds in our nation's economic future and was willing to trade higher income for greater job security. So I became a teacher, taking a big pay cut, but knowing my job would always be there as long as I did what I was supposed to do. For years, lots of folks made fun of my decision as the economy kept moving forward and they raked in the big bucks, but you can imagine what has happened to a lot of those people in the last few years. He who laughs last....
Even more important is the concept of making yourself indispensable at your work site, the idea of - if your employer needs to let people go, make yourself the last person they're going to want to get rid of. How can you do that? From my years in the work world, and from what my wife - who was a manager with Union Bank - tells me, I know that many workers: show up late, call in "sick" too often, do the least amount of work they think they can get away with, do sloppy, low-quality work, don't care about serving the customer as much as they should, etc. In short, they act as if they are "entitled" to their jobs instead of grateful for them. Consequently, the rare employee who consistently does the opposite of these things tends to clearly stand out. He/she gets the promotions, will be the last one to be let go if times get tough and, should he/she have to be laid off, will likely get the most help finding a new job - "Hey Charlie, we're cutting back and I had to let Sue go, but if you're looking for a great employee, you should really hire her!"
Another way to make yourself indispensable is to keep growing professionally. Learn new languages, keep upgrading your computer skills, earn advanced credentials in your field, attend workshops to improve your interpersonal skills, etc. In my own case, I upgraded my Spanish skills in order to earn a bilingual teaching credential, became the first one at my school to earn national board certification, and the first to become an IB examiner. As a result, I'm a highly effective teacher, my students' test scores are impressive, I'm recognized in the school district for these things, and I'm confident that even without "tenure", my job is secure. If for some reason I was no longer needed at my school, I know that other schools would be more than happy to have me on their staff. People in other fields of work could have done the same kinds of things, making themselves ever-more valuable to their employers, increasing their "indispensability".
Do you imagine that most of those poor folks on "60 Minutes" - or most of the other Americans who lost their jobs and are now in a tough situation - had handled their money prudently, carefully chosen and/or modified their career choices and then done everything they could make themselves indispensable at work, in order to protect their future and that of their families? Again, and with apologies to those who did - I suspect that 80% or more did not and therefore, I'm not as sympathetic to their plight as most people are.
A great many educated, skilled, upper-middle class Americans have lost their jobs in the last couple of years, and are having a hell of a time finding anything even close to as good as their previous jobs. The TV show "60 Minutes" did a heart-wrenching story on this recently. Here are people in their 40s, 50s, and 60s who did everything right. They got college degrees, even Masters' and PhDs, and went to work for big, prospering companies, and moved up the ladder over the years. These folks were experienced professionals, middle managers earning $100,000, $150,000, $250,000 a year - and they had earned it!
They also earned the lifestyle that came with the territory. The 2500 sq. ft. house in a good neighborhood, the nice cars and SUVs, dining out a couple of times a week, kids going to expensive colleges, regular vacations to Hawaii and Europe - the good life. And now they're losing it all because after many months of unemployment, where a job at Target is the best they can find, their savings is gone, they're about to lose their homes, and they don't know what to do. And it's not their fault; they did everything right!
Or did they? I think maybe not. My thesis is that probably 80% or more of these folks bear a fair share of responsibility for their current situation. The vast majority, I contend, could have and should have done things differently, and wouldn't be in this pickle if they had. And this is more than just "Monday morning quarterbacking", where you look back with hindsight and smugly predict the past.
It is only prudent to live within your means, to save 10% or more of what you earn. This is not revolutionary thinking, this is common advice and has been for many generations. I'm willing to bet that most of these people didn't do that and instead - like most Americans - spent nearly 100% of their growing incomes, if not 105% or 110% (by racking up debt on their credit cards and borrowing against the value of their homes).
It is only prudent to be concerned about the possibility of an economic slowdown or depression, and to take steps to "recession proof" your career. Here's what I mean. Recessions happen, sometimes they're very ugly, and any educated person should know that. They should also know that some jobs are more secure than others. On the contrary, I suspect that the majority of these people felt their days of worrying about their careers ended long ago: they got the good jobs, now all they needed to do was put in their 30 or 35 years and then live happily ever after. But that wasn't very realistic.
In my own case, I left a lucrative career in the investments business years ago because, in part, I saw dark clouds in our nation's economic future and was willing to trade higher income for greater job security. So I became a teacher, taking a big pay cut, but knowing my job would always be there as long as I did what I was supposed to do. For years, lots of folks made fun of my decision as the economy kept moving forward and they raked in the big bucks, but you can imagine what has happened to a lot of those people in the last few years. He who laughs last....
Even more important is the concept of making yourself indispensable at your work site, the idea of - if your employer needs to let people go, make yourself the last person they're going to want to get rid of. How can you do that? From my years in the work world, and from what my wife - who was a manager with Union Bank - tells me, I know that many workers: show up late, call in "sick" too often, do the least amount of work they think they can get away with, do sloppy, low-quality work, don't care about serving the customer as much as they should, etc. In short, they act as if they are "entitled" to their jobs instead of grateful for them. Consequently, the rare employee who consistently does the opposite of these things tends to clearly stand out. He/she gets the promotions, will be the last one to be let go if times get tough and, should he/she have to be laid off, will likely get the most help finding a new job - "Hey Charlie, we're cutting back and I had to let Sue go, but if you're looking for a great employee, you should really hire her!"
Another way to make yourself indispensable is to keep growing professionally. Learn new languages, keep upgrading your computer skills, earn advanced credentials in your field, attend workshops to improve your interpersonal skills, etc. In my own case, I upgraded my Spanish skills in order to earn a bilingual teaching credential, became the first one at my school to earn national board certification, and the first to become an IB examiner. As a result, I'm a highly effective teacher, my students' test scores are impressive, I'm recognized in the school district for these things, and I'm confident that even without "tenure", my job is secure. If for some reason I was no longer needed at my school, I know that other schools would be more than happy to have me on their staff. People in other fields of work could have done the same kinds of things, making themselves ever-more valuable to their employers, increasing their "indispensability".
Do you imagine that most of those poor folks on "60 Minutes" - or most of the other Americans who lost their jobs and are now in a tough situation - had handled their money prudently, carefully chosen and/or modified their career choices and then done everything they could make themselves indispensable at work, in order to protect their future and that of their families? Again, and with apologies to those who did - I suspect that 80% or more did not and therefore, I'm not as sympathetic to their plight as most people are.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Creation vs. Evolution: We Can All Get Along!
According to a nationwide Gallup survey (reported in the SD Union Tribune on November 17th, 2007), nearly two-thirds of all Americans believe in the idea of Creationism. That is, in this modern age the majority of us think that the Earth was created and humans placed upon it, all within the last 10,000 years! Dinosaurs, if they existed at all, romped along the plains, forests, and seashores side by side with our ancestors. Just to make sure you got this – about twice as many people in the U.S. believe this as believe in evolution. Excuse me?
What’s behind this strange peek into the American mindset? It’s not that we’re a nation of flat-Earth believers who overall deny what science has discovered. For example, as the evidence for global warming has increased, so has our nation’s willingness to believe in that theory. Today, about 95% of the world’s scientists believe that global warming is happening and that it’s a serious issue. Something like 75% of Americans now believe the same thing. OK – so we lag behind the scientists, but we’re mostly on the same page and that 75% number keeps rising. Yet something like 99% of all serious scientists acknowledge that evolution is a reality. In other words, there are about five times as many scientists who question global warming as those who question evolution. Or to put it in legal terms, 99% certainty on the part of legitimate scientists (including many who are devout Christians) is the same as saying evolution is a fact, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why in court case after court case, schools have been instructed to teach evolution, and have been ordered NOT to teach creationism, at least in science classes.
Of course, there are quite a few “scientists” promoting Intelligent Design (the sneaky new way to say Creationism). But those who are strict creationists, who believe that evolution played no part at all in the development of life forms, that the Earth was created by God a few thousand years ago just as it is today - they’re mostly pseudo-scientists, not really taken seriously by their peers and their “evidence” is easily discounted by those using legitimate methodology. In other words, you'd be hard pressed to find even a handful of respected scientists - people whose research and methodology is accepted by the scientific community - who don't think that plants and animals have evolved over millions of years
An example of the things you hear from strict creationists is that fossils and other ancient records that document evolution cannot be reliably dated. It’s like this: Archaeologist A dates pre-human primate bones at 2 million years old, archaeologist B dates them at 2.2 million years old, while archaeologist C dates them at 1.9 million years old, all using slightly different measuring procedures. “Aha” - says the evolution deniers! “You see how arbitrary those dating methods are? Surely, then, they could just as easily be only 6400 years old!” I'm sorry, but scientists disagree over differences of 5 or 10% in their measurements, yet the Creationists want us to believe that the scientists are off by 99% (virtually 100% wrong). Why in the world do 2/3 of Americans think this kind of reasoning makes sense?
Why should this be? Why can Americans accept global warming, space travel, the existence of sub-atomic particles that can't be seen, computers that do a billion calculations a second - but not evolution? What explains the blind spot in these people’s logic and world view? Of course it’s mostly about religion. Part of it is that folks in the U.S. are more likely to be conservative Christians than other people worldwide. "The Bible says God created man in His image, and that's that." Most European Christians, on the other hand, are perplexed and a bit embarrassed by their American cousins' rejection of evolution. In Europe, evolution is commonly seen as a fact, and most Christians there don't see why that should be a problem. But unlike most European Christians, many Christians in the U.S. basically feel that by questioning Creation you question the Bible and therefore their faith. So they won’t hear of it. Interestingly, most Jews (whose religion is based on the Old Testament) don’t seem to share this curious interpretation, but then Conservative and Reform Jews are noted for their respect of science, and for being open-minded.
What it boils down to for so many is a choice: either the Bible or scientific evidence. Refined further still, it’s either science OR religion. Choose one or choose the other; you’re either with me or you’re against me – no middle ground. And that, unfortunately, is a terrible and absolutely unnecessary choice to have to make. Perhaps the greatest scientist of all time, Albert Einstein, said that “Science without religion is lame.” He also said that “Religion without science is blind”. So – what if we really DON’T have to choose between the two?
Well, that’s the very compelling case Dr. Francis Collins makes in his 2006 book The Language of God. Collins is an interesting individual. As a devout, born-again Christian, he most definitely believes in God, Jesus Christ as humanity’s savior, and of course the Bible. Yet as the former head of the prestigious Human Genome Project, he is one of the world’s top experts in the field of genetics (so important to the understanding of evolution) and a scientist of unimpeachable reputation. The thesis of Collins’ most interesting book is that evolution may disagree with the literal reading of a small part of the Bible, but otherwise it meshes just fine with Christian religious beliefs.
It's this very literal reading of the Bible that causes so much trouble, by the way. 3000 years ago, when Genesis was written and humans understood so little of the natural world, could God really have explained how He created the universe with a Big Bang 6 billion years ago? How He caused sub-atomic particles to interact with the various cosmic forces emanating from dark holes, multiple-dimensions, and all the esoterica of astro-physics that we have trouble grasping even today? Seriously - how could the Bible have talked about this stuff 3000 years ago? So does it really lessen the value of the Bible and religion to think that the writers of Genesis used wording and analogies that the people of the time could understand - rather than only writing what was strictly, literally, verbatim true? Not really, a rational person might conclude.
But back to Collins and his book: Evolution is a fact beyond any reasonable challenges, and shouldn’t be a problem for believers, he argues. Put another way, there is no conflict between science and religion, between being a faithful Christian and a believer in the facts of evolution. Collins painstakingly addresses the most common arguments that Creationists and Intelligent Designers proffer, debunking each of them with cold, hard, convincing facts. Convincing, that is, to anyone with an open mind. In his view, incidentally, God gave humans a mind and wants us to use it to help understand the world He has created and, thus, to know Him. Collins goes on to show why God exists, and how He must have been the original source of life, which then changed over time via evolution. Whether you believe that part or not; whether you’re a fervent Christian, a firm evolutionist, an atheist, or somewhere else in between, you should at least read what Collins has to say. But the bottom line is that this fight – evolution vs. religion – is really needless.
What makes this even more needless is that in 1996 Pope John Paul II proclaimed that Evolution is “more than just a hypothesis” and that it is compatible with Christian faith! Probably no modern Pope was more loved and respected than John Paul II. And whether you're a Catholic or a Protestant (or even if you're not a Christian at all), can you think of anyone more knowledgeable about Christianity and the Bible than the Pope? The Pope, most European Christian leaders,and most Jewish leaders believe is that the Old Testament is beyond question - EXCEPT in matters involving science, which of course has broadened our understanding of things immensely over the centuries. Evolution's not just a theory; evolution (a scientific fact) doesn't conflict with Christianity. So said the Pope, traditionally the leader of the Christian world! Even if they're not Catholics, why would 2/3 of Americans think that the Pope lacks faith in the Bible, or isn't a good Christian, or any of the other claims made of those who believe that evolution is a reality?
So just what are we arguing about? Most Jews (who wrote Genesis, incidentally), most European Protestants, and the leader of the Catholic church believe in evolution, so obviously you don't have to sacrifice your religious beliefs in order to think the same. This isn't 1256 or 1803, when such an idea would have been unthinkable, just as space travel, computers, and atomic bombs would have been unthinkable - blasphemous! We've learned SO MUCH; we have endless examples of irrefutable proof. Why won't the strict creationists look at this proof with open minds? How in the world are they going to attract the agnostics of the world, those who WANT to believe in Christianity, but aren’t sure? If American Christians' position on something as clear cut as evolution is one of denial, why should people follow their beliefs on matters of (non-verifiable) faith alone? Honestly, strict Creationists: let's limit the debate to whether God created life on Earth, or whether it arose all on its own - THAT's the only part of the evolution issue where there's any reasonable doubt.
What’s behind this strange peek into the American mindset? It’s not that we’re a nation of flat-Earth believers who overall deny what science has discovered. For example, as the evidence for global warming has increased, so has our nation’s willingness to believe in that theory. Today, about 95% of the world’s scientists believe that global warming is happening and that it’s a serious issue. Something like 75% of Americans now believe the same thing. OK – so we lag behind the scientists, but we’re mostly on the same page and that 75% number keeps rising. Yet something like 99% of all serious scientists acknowledge that evolution is a reality. In other words, there are about five times as many scientists who question global warming as those who question evolution. Or to put it in legal terms, 99% certainty on the part of legitimate scientists (including many who are devout Christians) is the same as saying evolution is a fact, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why in court case after court case, schools have been instructed to teach evolution, and have been ordered NOT to teach creationism, at least in science classes.
Of course, there are quite a few “scientists” promoting Intelligent Design (the sneaky new way to say Creationism). But those who are strict creationists, who believe that evolution played no part at all in the development of life forms, that the Earth was created by God a few thousand years ago just as it is today - they’re mostly pseudo-scientists, not really taken seriously by their peers and their “evidence” is easily discounted by those using legitimate methodology. In other words, you'd be hard pressed to find even a handful of respected scientists - people whose research and methodology is accepted by the scientific community - who don't think that plants and animals have evolved over millions of years
An example of the things you hear from strict creationists is that fossils and other ancient records that document evolution cannot be reliably dated. It’s like this: Archaeologist A dates pre-human primate bones at 2 million years old, archaeologist B dates them at 2.2 million years old, while archaeologist C dates them at 1.9 million years old, all using slightly different measuring procedures. “Aha” - says the evolution deniers! “You see how arbitrary those dating methods are? Surely, then, they could just as easily be only 6400 years old!” I'm sorry, but scientists disagree over differences of 5 or 10% in their measurements, yet the Creationists want us to believe that the scientists are off by 99% (virtually 100% wrong). Why in the world do 2/3 of Americans think this kind of reasoning makes sense?
Why should this be? Why can Americans accept global warming, space travel, the existence of sub-atomic particles that can't be seen, computers that do a billion calculations a second - but not evolution? What explains the blind spot in these people’s logic and world view? Of course it’s mostly about religion. Part of it is that folks in the U.S. are more likely to be conservative Christians than other people worldwide. "The Bible says God created man in His image, and that's that." Most European Christians, on the other hand, are perplexed and a bit embarrassed by their American cousins' rejection of evolution. In Europe, evolution is commonly seen as a fact, and most Christians there don't see why that should be a problem. But unlike most European Christians, many Christians in the U.S. basically feel that by questioning Creation you question the Bible and therefore their faith. So they won’t hear of it. Interestingly, most Jews (whose religion is based on the Old Testament) don’t seem to share this curious interpretation, but then Conservative and Reform Jews are noted for their respect of science, and for being open-minded.
What it boils down to for so many is a choice: either the Bible or scientific evidence. Refined further still, it’s either science OR religion. Choose one or choose the other; you’re either with me or you’re against me – no middle ground. And that, unfortunately, is a terrible and absolutely unnecessary choice to have to make. Perhaps the greatest scientist of all time, Albert Einstein, said that “Science without religion is lame.” He also said that “Religion without science is blind”. So – what if we really DON’T have to choose between the two?
Well, that’s the very compelling case Dr. Francis Collins makes in his 2006 book The Language of God. Collins is an interesting individual. As a devout, born-again Christian, he most definitely believes in God, Jesus Christ as humanity’s savior, and of course the Bible. Yet as the former head of the prestigious Human Genome Project, he is one of the world’s top experts in the field of genetics (so important to the understanding of evolution) and a scientist of unimpeachable reputation. The thesis of Collins’ most interesting book is that evolution may disagree with the literal reading of a small part of the Bible, but otherwise it meshes just fine with Christian religious beliefs.
It's this very literal reading of the Bible that causes so much trouble, by the way. 3000 years ago, when Genesis was written and humans understood so little of the natural world, could God really have explained how He created the universe with a Big Bang 6 billion years ago? How He caused sub-atomic particles to interact with the various cosmic forces emanating from dark holes, multiple-dimensions, and all the esoterica of astro-physics that we have trouble grasping even today? Seriously - how could the Bible have talked about this stuff 3000 years ago? So does it really lessen the value of the Bible and religion to think that the writers of Genesis used wording and analogies that the people of the time could understand - rather than only writing what was strictly, literally, verbatim true? Not really, a rational person might conclude.
But back to Collins and his book: Evolution is a fact beyond any reasonable challenges, and shouldn’t be a problem for believers, he argues. Put another way, there is no conflict between science and religion, between being a faithful Christian and a believer in the facts of evolution. Collins painstakingly addresses the most common arguments that Creationists and Intelligent Designers proffer, debunking each of them with cold, hard, convincing facts. Convincing, that is, to anyone with an open mind. In his view, incidentally, God gave humans a mind and wants us to use it to help understand the world He has created and, thus, to know Him. Collins goes on to show why God exists, and how He must have been the original source of life, which then changed over time via evolution. Whether you believe that part or not; whether you’re a fervent Christian, a firm evolutionist, an atheist, or somewhere else in between, you should at least read what Collins has to say. But the bottom line is that this fight – evolution vs. religion – is really needless.
What makes this even more needless is that in 1996 Pope John Paul II proclaimed that Evolution is “more than just a hypothesis” and that it is compatible with Christian faith! Probably no modern Pope was more loved and respected than John Paul II. And whether you're a Catholic or a Protestant (or even if you're not a Christian at all), can you think of anyone more knowledgeable about Christianity and the Bible than the Pope? The Pope, most European Christian leaders,and most Jewish leaders believe is that the Old Testament is beyond question - EXCEPT in matters involving science, which of course has broadened our understanding of things immensely over the centuries. Evolution's not just a theory; evolution (a scientific fact) doesn't conflict with Christianity. So said the Pope, traditionally the leader of the Christian world! Even if they're not Catholics, why would 2/3 of Americans think that the Pope lacks faith in the Bible, or isn't a good Christian, or any of the other claims made of those who believe that evolution is a reality?
So just what are we arguing about? Most Jews (who wrote Genesis, incidentally), most European Protestants, and the leader of the Catholic church believe in evolution, so obviously you don't have to sacrifice your religious beliefs in order to think the same. This isn't 1256 or 1803, when such an idea would have been unthinkable, just as space travel, computers, and atomic bombs would have been unthinkable - blasphemous! We've learned SO MUCH; we have endless examples of irrefutable proof. Why won't the strict creationists look at this proof with open minds? How in the world are they going to attract the agnostics of the world, those who WANT to believe in Christianity, but aren’t sure? If American Christians' position on something as clear cut as evolution is one of denial, why should people follow their beliefs on matters of (non-verifiable) faith alone? Honestly, strict Creationists: let's limit the debate to whether God created life on Earth, or whether it arose all on its own - THAT's the only part of the evolution issue where there's any reasonable doubt.
Ethical Hunters? You Gotta Be Kidding!
THE ETHICAL HUNTER
It is common knowledge that hunting is a cruel and barbarous relic of our less civilized past that is no longer appropriate. As Friends of Animals so accurately puts it, hunting is “an act against Nature.” (Hunting – An Act Against Nature, c. 1995) While hunting and the associated killing of animals was a necessary part of human survival for millennia, that is simply no longer the case today. We have domesticated animals that are more than sufficient to satisfy our desire for meat, animals that exist now solely for that purpose and whose death does not detract from the majesty of Nature’s wild lands. At the same time, numerous recent scientific studies have confirmed that balanced, healthy vegetarian diets can provide all of our nutritional needs without any meat whatsoever.
So why do hunters persist in their “sport”, that is all about killing defenseless animals? How would they like it if, somehow, deer and ducks were chasing them around, shooting at them? But more importantly – why do we allow these “sportsmen” to pursue their activity? Many other harmful activities that were permitted in times past are now outlawed; why isn’t hunting? And anyway – hunting as a “sport”? How much skill or physical ability is required to drive around looking for an animal to blast away at with today’s sophisticated weaponry?
* * * * * * * * * * * *
If you live in a big city or its suburbs, especially on the
The fact is that a great many Americans are woefully ignorant when it comes to ethical hunting as it is practiced in this country. It’s important to note that “ignorant” is not the same thing as stupid; there is no intent to insult those who oppose hunting. Rather, this monograph is simply an attempt to address commonly held beliefs about hunting; in particular, commonly held and erroneous beliefs about hunting big game animals, focusing on deer and elk, the two most widely hunted big game species in
THE CLAIM: Hunting is not a sport; few skills or physical abilities are required to kill a defenseless animal.
A lot of “hunters” ride around in trucks, looking for animals to shoot at from or near the road. Others are fortunate enough to just look out their back porches and see legal game animals. A great many enjoy going to ranches where they can look over many fine animals before choosing the one they want to “harvest”. All of these are great ways to put meat on the table, but none is really hunting in the fullest sense; certainly, they are a far cry from what most serious hunters engage in when they hunt. Similarly, there is no interest here in defending “slob” hunters – those who hunt illegally or who don’t utilize the animals they kill. It is they who are responsible for a great deal of animosity towards, and misconceptions about, legitimate, ethical hunting. Rather, it is the serious, ethical hunters as described below, hunters who are an integral part of, and who abide by, the principles of what has become known as the North American Wildlife Conservation Model (http://www.huntright.org/heritage/AldrichConservationModel.aspx,) that this essay seeks to defend.
For the author and those with whom he has hunted over several decades, hunting is an intensely physical and challenging activity. They typically travel hundreds or thousands of miles to hunt in the Sierras or the
This demanding physical activity generally continues for several days during the short hunting season – as many days as one is able to hunt. That is because the majority of hunters - even the serious, experienced ones – don’t get a shot at a legal animal every year. Animals, while unarmed, are far from defenseless. Nature has gifted them with three especially keen senses: sight, hearing, and smell. Consequently, the fact is that in the woods, deer, elk and other game animals have the distinct advantage over human hunters. This is illustrated by overall success rates for hunters, which ranged from 3% to 64% for deer in the various hunting units and seasons of California in 2001, averaging about 20% overall (California Department of Fish and Game, 2002 Big Game Hunting). In Colorado, with the nation’s largest elk population, hunter success rates for those animals typically range from 5-50% (again – depending on which part of the state, the season, and the weapon used), with an overall average of about 20% as well (Colorado Division of Wildlife, Big Game Hunting Statistics, 1991-1999).
Another indication of just how hard most hunters have to work is the number of days needed for the average hunter to bag his or her animal. During the 2001 deer season in western
Yet there is reason to question these kinds of numbers as telling the whole story. Accepting that only some 20% of deer hunters are successful in bagging an animal, one still wonders how many hunters wound an animal without recovering it. Accurate statistics for that would seem very difficult to obtain, and in fact do not seem to be available. But even if only a few percent of all hunters wound an animal, that would translate into thousands of animals that might die a slow and painful death. This is indeed a troubling consideration, one that we should keep in mind as we consider all the merits of ethical hunting.
Now, assuming one is among the minority who get a shot at a legal animal, then a whole new set of skills come into play. Being a good shot with a high-power rifle is not a simple proposition. Most serious hunters have several good quality scoped rifles, typically worth about $1000 each, which they alternate under various conditions and for different animals. They go out to the local shooting range several times a year to practice at various distances and from a variety of shooting positions, with the ultimate goal of being able to quickly, reliably, and humanely kill any game animal at which they are fortunate enough to have a good shot.
Accordingly, hunters must be knowledgeable about different weapons, calibers, bullets, and riflescopes. They must know where their bullet will strike based on a wide number of variables, not the least of which are: distance, angle of the shot, wind speed and wind direction. In most cases, shooting is much more challenging than just raising up the rifle, pulling the trigger, and collecting your trophy animal – and that’s just talking about high-power rifles. Muzzleloaders and archery hunters have things even harder. Again – all of this is borne out by the low success rate of hunters and the many days they typically spend trying to take a legal animal.
While of course any hunter hopes to succeed in bringing home a good animal, the reality is that most hunters are happy to go out day after day, knowing that they probably won’t even get a shot. The excitement of preparing for each fall’s hunting trip, enjoying the camaraderie of fellow hunters, being away from civilization and in the midst of the beautiful outdoors, connecting with Nature and our own human past in a way that one can never do by looking for food in the grocery store, the exhausted but satisfied feeling of sitting around the campfire at night – these are the things that keep hunters going out into the woods year after year.
THE REALITY: Big game hunting is extremely challenging, both physically and mentally, and is a sport in all legitimate senses of the word.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
THE CLAIM: Hunting is an abomination; it is an act against Nature.
The group Friends of Animals, in Hunting – An Act Against Nature, exemplifies the feelings of many anti-hunters as they aver that humans behave unnaturally when hunting. They believe that “the hunter as predator is a lame excuse and fallacious. The fact is that hunting … serve(s) no useful purpose.” Those who have merely a passing familiarity with Nature find this emotionally appealing. Yet, that is not the same thing as saying that it is correct.
We know, for example, that humans have been hunters for hundreds of thousands of years. Humans evolved into that role after countless millennia as gatherers and scavengers in
So the history of humankind is at least partly the history of predation, because after all, hunters are predators. Predators, even animal rights folks readily admit, play a critical role in maintaining healthy animal populations. Humans, who evolved into the most successful of all predators, have been key players for many thousands of years in the never-ending and very natural process of hunter and hunted. One might wish to suggest that humans have now evolved to the point where they no longer need to be hunter/predators, but any assertion that human hunters are committing an unnatural act is made contrary to both logic and natural history.
It is noteworthy that throughout human history, skilled hunters have been recognized as among the most respected and highly esteemed members of any society. This has been the case worldwide, at least up until recent times. The man (or woman) who could regularly bring home the venison, the elk or other wild meat was honored as a great contributor to the group’s survival. Even well into the 20th century in this country, going hunting was generally seen as a normal (natural, if you will) and positive thing to do, and the successful hunter was widely admired for his skill. How ironic and sad, then, that hunters are now vilified by such a large segment of the population that, just decades ago, used to venerate them!
This vilification is largely a result, as suggested earlier, of the general population’s lack of knowledge and understanding of legitimate hunting. At the same time, it is only fair to acknowledge that not all of the anti-hunters’ views are without merit. For example, market hunters once decimated entire animal populations, nearly causing the extinction of bison and elk, and the localized wiping out of deer, bear, and other animals – no one posits this as a good thing. Nor does it seem particularly in line with the idea of man as a natural check on animal populations.
Fortunately, this kind of decimation ended nearly a hundred years ago in the
But while the decimation of animal populations is clearly an issue of past times, it is nevertheless troubling to many that hunters continue to focus on taking animals with the largest antlers, the biggest hides, and so forth. This is a problem, and goes against the idea of natural selection, because with healthy, natural predation, it is the small, weak, and/or injured animals that are culled – not the largest, strongest, healthiest ones. Taking the best of a species serves to reduce the genetic potency of that species, which can have dire consequences for its future viability.
Furthermore, some hunters don’t even care much for their animal’s meat, wasting a great deal of it and making no apologies for killing without utilizing the meat. They say that either way the animal is dead, and so what’s the difference if one hunts for meat, or for hide and horns? This may be true, but it doesn’t match well with the idea of man as an agent of natural selection, and in minimizing the value of the animal’s life, it does little to endear hunters to animal lovers.
Well the good news is that not many hunters care only for the hide and antlers, and more importantly, many hunting seasons are timed to occur after the rut. This means that by the time that big buck or bull elk is killed, he’s often already made his contribution to the gene pool. A look at Boone & Crockett Club records will quickly confirm such a belief. This organization, founded by avid conservationist and hunter Teddy Roosevelt, has kept records on the largest animals taken by hunters for the last 100 years, and provides information based on species and locality.
The club recognizes, for example, four subcategories of world’s record (largest) elk; one of them was taken in 1968, the remaining three were all from the 1990s. (http://www.boone-crockett.org/bgRecords/WorldRecordsDetail.asp?area=bgRecords&type=ELK)
In looking beyond just the world records, 12 of the 20 largest elk ever recorded for
THE REALITY: Hunting is a fact of life and death in Nature, and humans have been an integral part of that natural activity for hundreds of millennia. The data clearly shows that human hunters in the
* * * * * * * * * * * *
THE CLAIM: Eating the flesh of animals is unhealthy, immoral, and wasteful.
A great many people, for a variety of reasons, choose not to eat meat. Their motives fall into three main categories: for health reasons, because of the cruelty inherent in raising and killing animals for food, and for concern about the environment.
HEALTH: Several different types of cancer have been linked to diets that are high in meat, not the least of which is breast cancer, which the National Cancer Institute found is four times more common among women who eat significant amounts of meat and dairy products (http://www.nci.nih.gov/). It is said that meat contains some 14 times the level of pesticides found in plant products, and the elimination of all meat and dairy products reduces the risk of heart attacks by 90%. Additionally, most bacterial infections, such as E. coli and Salmonella, are contracted from eating meat and animal by-products. http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/SoulFood2/nutrition/vegetarian/reasonsveg1.html)
CRUELTY: The animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) graphically states the case against killing animals for food this way, “Turkeys are tormented on factory farms and then watch in horror as their companions are killed before them and struggle in terror as their throats are slit before being scaled—often while still conscious.” (http://www.peta.org/feat/turk-terr/1.html). Yet the animals’ final moments of terror only culminate the mistreatment they’ve experience throughout their lives. “New-born calves are locked in crates, not allowed to move, and underfed until they are slaughtered and served as veal. Chickens are packed so tightly into cages that they can barely move. Excrement falls through the stacked cages onto chickens below.” (http://veggietable.allinfo-about.com/articles/whybeavegetarian.html) How can this be acceptable, they rightly ask?
ENVIRONMENT: The environmental case for not eating meat is equally compelling. It has been said that “An acre of prime land can produce 40,000 lbs. of potatoes, 30,000 lbs. of carrots, 50,000 lbs. of tomatoes, or 250 lbs. of beef.” We can easily see, then, that much less land would need to be fertilized and farmed if we were all vegetarians. Furthermore, “the amount of animal manure produced in the
So it's not so hard to see why many people choose to avoid meat and animal products. Yet some of their arguments are flawed, and interestingly enough, several of them are better offered by hunters as justification for using wild game as a source of food.
HEALTH: Opinions on the healthiness of eating meat have fluctuated with the times. Until the 1960s, the great majority of American thought that red meat was synonymous with health and vitality. This began to change by the 1960s, a change that accelerated throughout the succeeding decades. Today it is estimated that more than 12 million Americans practice vegetarianism in some form or another, although a great many of these still eat red meat, poultry and/or fish on occasion. (http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0494/et0494s8.html) However, medical research in recent years has started to cast doubt on the assertion that eating meat is unhealthy.
The gist of this new thinking, backed by powerful medical and anthropological studies, is that humans evolved over hundreds of thousands of years on a diet that was high in meat, as well as nuts, berries, and fruits. Our bodies, not surprisingly, are designed to function best on such a diet. Human bodies are not, by contrast, at their healthiest on a diet that is high in carbohydrates provided by such "healthy" foods as bread and pasta, and the sugars found in so many foods today. (http://www.mercola.com/article/Diet/carbohydrates/paleolithic_diet.htm) In fact, there is evidence that as humans shifted to a heavier reliance on starchy foods with the rise of agriculture, beginning some 10,000 years ago, tooth decay, malnutrition, and rates of infectious disease increased dramatically. (http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml)
Contrary to the conventional thinking of recent decades, researchers are finding that just as our ancestors craved animal fat in their diets, high fat foods may not be as bad for modern humans as we've been led to believe. For some 30 years, Dr. Robert C. Atkins advocated a diet that is high in animal protein and fat, and was ridiculed by the medical community for doing so. Over the years he has steadfastly and convincingly defended his ideas, and has recently gained impressive support from some most unlikely sources. In November 2002, the American Heart Association (AHA) summarized the results of a study they oversaw; a study, by the way, that they expected to show Dr. Atkins theories as fatally flawed, once and for all. Surprisingly, what their study found was that Dr. Atkins' diet was more effective than their own low-fat diet for weight loss (an average of 31 pounds lost on Atkins, vs. 20 pounds on AHA). Furthermore, his diet yielded little change in "bad" cholesterol, but higher levels of "good" cholesterol in the study's subjects (up 6 mg/dl with Atkins vs. down 2 mg/dl on the AHA diet)! (http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/021100puatkins.htm) Subsequent studies, by other independent groups, continue to show similar results. Yet Dr. Atkins detractors continue to dispute these findings and to maliciously (and incorrectly!) claim that his death, while grossly overweight, was a result of eating a high fat diet. http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-02-10-atkins_x.htm But the fact is that it is now far from clear that eating meat is unhealthy.
Although many nutritionists suggest that one can have a healthy diet that does not include meat, there are numerous challenges to such a belief, as Dr. Stephen Byrnes, of the International Organization of Nutritional Consultants points out in a lengthy article on vegetarianism. He describes, among other things, how sufficient amounts of essential vitamins A, D, and B12 are unlikely to be found in a non-meat diet. (http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths/myths_truths_vegetarianism.html)
The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (
While not particularly germane to the question of whether modern humans should or should not eat meat, it is nevertheless interesting to note that anthropologists now believe that the inclusion of meat (especially cooked meat) in early humans' diets was a significant factor in developing advanced levels of human intelligence. (http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/6549.html) Since meat is a richer source of nutrients than plants, increased meat consumption aided the physical growth of the human species (and its predecessor hominoids). This growth shows up in gradually increased cranium size, which implies larger brains and, thus, greater intelligence. (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html)
The trend accelerated once humans tamed the use of fire and began cooking meat. Cooked meat is much easier for the body to digest than raw meat, thus permitting it to divert even more nutrients to other parts of the body including, most notably, the brain. (http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/1147.html) This is not to imply that vegetarianism will ultimately result in lower IQs, but it does seem to further support the idea that eating meat is both a healthy, natural, and inherently "human" thing to do.
As for the question of pesticides, hormones, bacteria and other unhealthy elements found in meat, this is where hunters point out the benefits of eating wild game. Venison and other wild meats are free of virtually all pesticides, herbicides, hormones, and other additives. And while contamination from E. coli and other bacteria is possible, one can also ensure that this does not happen. Since the hunter is in control of the animal from the time it is killed until it is on the table, he or she has the ability to make sure that it is kept clean, cool, and free of contaminants, unlike domestic animals that are processed in bulk.
Finally, wild meats such as venison are famously low in fat. If one wants, in fact, to pursue a low-fat diet, wild game is one way to do it. A 3-ounce serving of venison contains less than 3 grams of fat, compared to an average of over 6 grams of fat in chicken and about 10 grams of fat in various cuts of beef. (http://ag.arizona.edu/nsc/new/news/news1-00.htm#6) Even grains can be higher in fat, as oats contain about 5% fat, vs. 3-4% for venison. (http://www.grainstore.com/Oats.cfm)
CRUELTY: The cruelty to animals that permeates the domestic animal industry is troubling to say the least, and presents the meat-eater with a quandary, as he or she must weigh the perceived advantages of eating meat against the cruelty imposed on the animals that provide it. There is, of course, the old Biblical spin on this issue: God placed animals on Earth for the good of Man, and it is their destiny to serve as our food. But that rationale only goes so far in relieving a thinking person's remorse over the mistreatment of animals destined for the table.
No mentally healthy person likes seeing animals suffer, and that certainly includes most hunters. It may seem paradoxical to some, but hunters truly love and respect their quarry in ways that non-hunters perhaps cannot completely fathom, and typically kneel beside the animal after a successful hunt to thank it for giving its life and flesh to the hunter and his/her family. Ethical hunters strive for the shot that kills in a matter of seconds, with the animal experiencing as little pain as possible. Of course, this is not always the case, as many game animals don't expire for several minutes or even hours after they're shot; this is something that torments thoughtful hunters. And unfortunately, there are more than a few hunters who too willingly take shots that are marginal, wounding animals who then escape only to suffer, and often die a slow, painful death, as first considered on page 3. Yet compared to the way that the animals would otherwise die (a topic discussed at some length in a later section), and compared to the cruelty imposed on domestic animals, one must conclude that game animals' overall pain and suffering are relatively modest in most cases, at least as we consider the subject of this essay: the ethical hunter who chooses his/her shot carefully and is proficient enough to usually hit the mark. Thus, the hunter feels that if one is to use animals for food, then perhaps the least cruel way to do it is by using legitimate, conscientious hunting methods.
ENVIRONMENT: There is no interest here in challenging the statistics regarding the inefficient use of natural resources in raising animals for human consumption. Let us just concede, for argument's sake, that vegetarians place much less strain on the environment than do meat-eaters, based on the kinds of statistics cited earlier.
Yet even if domestic animals create a great deal of environmental problems, then it would still be true that hunters place fewer demands on the environment than vegetarians. No wild lands at all are deforested to create croplands for hunters. No fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides are used by hunters at all. No natural waterways at all are drained to irrigate hunters' lands. Those who produce non-meat food items - even organic farmers - cannot make the same claim. While farmers must and do clear lands of their native plants and animals to provide food for the masses, hunters are “among the most fervent Americans when it comes to protecting the unspoiled lands that hold their game” – this according to the preeminent (and generally anti-hunting) conservationist organization, the Sierra Club. (http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/199605/ways.asp) Further, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says that “By paying the Federal excise tax on hunting equipment, hunters are contributing hundreds of millions of dollars for conservation programs that benefit many wildlife species, both hunted and non-hunted.” (http://hunting.fws.gov/whatdo.html)
THE REALITY: While vegetarians make some valid points, wild meat is one of the healthiest of foods for humans. Hunters provide a less cruel and more environmentally benign way for humans to get meat, compared to the alternatives.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
THE CLAIM: Meat is murder; hunters kill beautiful animals. “Ethical hunter” is an oxymoron.
This is what it mostly comes down to for many opponents of hunting: hunters kill, and that's just wrong, plain and simple. Well, this “simple truth” is neither simple nor true. Surely, the hunter's ultimate objective is to kill an animal and eat it. But the question is: how wrong is this? The answer is both multi-faceted and complex.
WILD ANIMALS DIE IN GRUESOME WAYS: The answer to the common rhetorical question: “how would hunters like it if animals were hunting them?” is that, of course they wouldn’t like it at all! But that is the wrong question. We’re all going to die, and generally speaking, nobody is happy about it. Yet we will indeed die, and the animals that are the targets of big game hunters will surely die as well. So the more relevant question is: how will they die? In reality, few animals die peacefully in their sleep of old age, as many anti-hunters must believe they do. According to a study of elk in
Research on elk introduced into
Starvation (severe malnutrition) is a related cause of mortality, as it can result from too many animals being pushed onto increasingly smaller habitable areas. It can also be the result of overpopulation caused by a number of other factors, such as mild winters and a lack of adequate predation. Such overpopulation leads to unsustainable pressure on the natural food sources, wherein virtually all forage is eventually wiped out by the starving animals. Alternatively, animal starvation inevitably increases during times of extended drought and severe winters when, once again, there is insufficient food and/or water for all. Starving to death and/or dying of thirst, one imagines, must be neither a quick nor painless way to die.
Winter typically prompts the greatest die-off, as several factors converge at that time of year to the animals’ detriment. Adult male deer and elk, for example, are in a weakened physical state after “the rut”, a period when virtually all of their energies are spent on mating and fighting their rivals. For several weeks in the fall, when other animals are loading up on calories to see them through the winter, male elk and deer hardly eat at all, and instead expend a great deal of energy on their rutting activities. This reality was evident in the
Author and satellite bull, 2002
Winter, with all of its stresses, is also the time when animals are most susceptible to death by diseases or injury. It must be remembered, however, that “malnutrition is often the
fundamental cause of mortality actually brought about by other agents.” Diseases such as necrotic stomatitis, and parasites such as lungworm and tapeworms, cause the deaths of many very young, old, and otherwise weaker animals. Broken legs and other injuries caused by fighting or just by living in a harsh environment similarly make it less likely that animals will survive the harsh winter.
(http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/fauna4/fauna6b.htm) Who would suggest that dying of the combined effects of cold, and lack of food, perhaps while injured or sick, would be a pleasant way to depart this Earth?
Predators are always present, except to the degree that humans have removed them from the environment. Besides Man, mountain lions, coyotes, bears, and wolves are the major natural predators for North American deer and elk. A study by the state of
(http://www.gmfsh.state.nm.us/PageMill_TExt/Publication/lion.html) In
Could being attacked by a pack of coyotes, or brought down by a lion or bear, be anything but a horrible death? While death would usually come rather swiftly after a period of sheer terror, countless cases of extended and painful battles between predator and prey have been documented. Even worse, it is not unknown for some predators to begin feeding while their prey is still alive. Take the case of
The bottom line is that life in the wild is not like a Disney movie. Wild animals lead brutish lives that more often than not end violently and/or painfully. While it would be disingenuous to say that hunters are doing animals a favor by putting them out of their misery, the fact is that non-hunted animals suffer more from most non-human causes of death. And the specious argument that: “well, at least they’re not dying prematurely, and they’re dying the way Nature intended” ignores the reality of humans’ ingrained role as natural predators across the millennia.
At the risk of anthropomorphizing, one cannot help but think that, given a choice between living freely in the wild and then suddenly – BAM! – feeling a sharp pain, and collapsing a few minutes later, versus a slow, painful death by starvation, disease, injury, cold or a quick, violent death by predators, animals would prefer the former option. Similarly, returning to the way domesticated animals live and die, which would you prefer: an essentially lobotomized existence your entire life with hundreds or thousands of your species, confined in filthy pens, cages, and feedlots – a purposeless existence other than to serve as a food source for humans, OR roaming the majestic wilderness for years and then one day – BOOM – you’re gone? Of course, we can’t know what animals would choose, if they could choose, but still, it’s hard to see death by human hunters as the worst way to go…
DEATH MEANS LIFE: The argument against killing game animals betrays a modern, Western naïveté: that death is ever and always a bad thing to be avoided at all costs. In reality, life and death are inexorably connected: there is no life without death and, just as importantly, death always results in life. Every animal WILL die; that’s the “price” of living. Yet the animal killed by whatever cause brings forth life in one way or another. Maybe the animal’s death allows coyotes or lions or humans to survive. Birds and other scavengers will benefit from the animal’s deaths. Whatever those animals don’t eat returns to Earth with the help of insects, worms, fungi, bacteria, and other living organisms, creating nutrition for the plants that make our wild lands beautiful and ultimately providing the essential nourishment for future generations of animals. Another way to say this is that without death, there would be no life: no deer, no coyotes, no birds, no trees, and surely no humans to gnash their teeth over the cruelty of hunters.
Life and death form a never-ending circle, with “death” actually somewhat of a misnomer. A more correct term would be “transformation”, as one form of life is transformed into other forms of life. The American Indians understood this, as did our own (Western) ancestors before they became so “advanced”; eastern religions and philosophies understand this even today. The death of a beautiful animal is a sad thing, no doubt. But it is just the way things work, and a cause for celebration as well as lamentation.
HYPOCRICY: A great deal of hypocrisy, usually unintended and unrecognized, is associated with those who chastise hunters for killing Nature’s beautiful animals. For example, one might ask: WHY
- is it terrible for hunters to kill those beautiful animals in the wild, but it’s OK for us to confine domestic animals under miserable conditions? Is it just their destiny?
- it’s terrible for hunters to cut up and eat the animals they’ve “harvested”, but fine to go down to the supermarket to buy meat for dinner? Is that because supermarket meat doesn’t really represent an animal, it’s just hamburger or steak or bacon, all neatly wrapped up in plastic by someone else?
- it’s wrong to abuse Nature by taking game animals, but acceptable to destroy the habitat that supports wildlife as we continually extend our suburbs? Is it acceptable to kill wild animals, as long as we do it indirectly?
- is it wrong to kill beautiful doe-eyed animals, but OK to eat goofy-looking chicken or cold, scaly fish? Is “cuteness” a legitimate factor for deciding what we may kill?
- hunting is barbaric, but fishing is a noble sport? Could it be that fish feel no pain? Then there’s the related hypocrisy: why is it bad to eat the fish we catch, but catch and release fishing is a good thing? Is it OK to cause fish pain just for fun, but not for something as base as putting food on the table?
- American Indian lifestyles were a model of harmony with Nature, and their hunting activities were righteous, but this doesn’t apply to whites who try to emulate their philosophy and actions today?
- since vegans don’t kill animals, they’re superior to those who do? Why is it OK to exploit Nature’s plants, but not her animals?
Let’s look a little closer at this last one, because after all, plants are living things too, and exhibit of a number of behaviors that most people would attribute only to animals. Scientists know from recent research, for example, that plants regularly communicate with one another to warn of imminent danger from a variety of sources. Plants also communicate with insects, both warning away those that would eat them, and calling for help from insects that feed on their enemies. (“Talking Plants”, Discover Magazine, April 2002) Plants also have a “stress response” to actions such as cutting one of their leaves. They respond to this by releasing a chemical called ethylene, and “the researchers who studied this response had a rather bizarre way of measuring the presence of ethylene – by listening for it. To be precise, they captured the gas in a bell jar and fired lasers at it, which resonated with the molecules and emitted sound at a particular frequency. Upon seeing this, it wasn’t long before scientists and journalists alike were calling these sounds ‘screams’, and suddenly this response seemed a lot more like pain as we know it!” (http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/Biology/0211/b01052d.html) Other researchers reported in The Journal of Biological Chemistry that plants “cry in pain” in response to attacks by herbivores, and that their “pain” can be alleviated by the use of aspirin and similar drugs. (http://clasdean.la.asu.edu/news/aspirin.htm)
Well all right – let us admit that any “pain” plants may feel upon being harvested, cooked or eaten is likely to be on a lower level than pain felt by a deer that is shot by a hunter, and in fact may be no more than a chemical reaction that isn’t quite equivalent to the pain animals feel.. And so it comes down to a matter of degree, which prompts the following question: just where do we draw the line?
If killers of deer are wrong, then aren’t killers of beef cattle? If killing cattle is wrong, then how is killing a chicken any different? Can we kill fish because, unlike cows and chickens, they aren’t warm-blooded? And if we can’t eat fish, then what about grubs and other insects that historically made up a large portion of primitive people’s diets? Do those lowly animals feel pain; are they far enough down in the animal kingdom not to have to worry about? How about sponges? They’re animals, but primitive and sedentary – may we use them? If we cannot, then why may we cut down a living plant to eat or otherwise utilize? If we shouldn’t do that, then can it be right to uproot vegetables and eat them raw, or boil them when they’re still alive? May we at least eat the fruits and nuts that fall from living plants, or does that interfere too much with their species’ chances to reproduce?
Just how much does eating nuts differ from eating vegetables, or eating insects or fish or deer? Where, precisely, is the line drawn between right and wrong, and why is it drawn there instead of at another point?
Of course any “line” is arbitrary. Where you draw the line is much more about you and the particular way you think than it is about immutable ethics. All living things are sacred, yet we may ethically utilize them as a food source, since that is the way of Nature. Venison, salmon, bugs, or carrots? It’s all the same – Nature doesn’t care what we eat or don’t eat; she will see to it that the world carries on and that any given species will flourish, as long as we don’t over-exploit it.
THE REALITY: Death is all around us, and that’s not an entirely bad thing. We are all killers in one way or another. Ethical hunters are simply honest about it, and they take pride in being able to put healthy food on the table as a result of their own hard efforts.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
It sort of boils down to this: serious hunters take a lot of abuse for their sport, when in reality they engage in a healthy, natural and ethical pursuit. One may choose not to hunt because he or she thinks deer are just too pretty to kill, or simply does not like thinking about death or being around blood and guts. But considering that those things are facts of life, then being a passive, third-party food gatherer hardly makes one morally superior to someone who personally takes responsibility for getting his or her own food. Or one may not wish to hunt, feeling that Man has evolved to such a point that killing other animals is beneath him or her. But such an assertion is clearly an individual opinion that is far from indisputable, and in any event does nothing to show that hunting is unnatural. One may decide that a non-meat diet suits them better than the alternative, or wish to draw the line by eating plants but not animals. Yet this is not to say that meat – especially wild game – is unhealthy, nor that there is any inherent legitimacy attached to the belief in eating only foods that come directly from plants.
The fact is that opposition to hunting is mostly based on false assumptions, incomplete understanding, tortured logic, and sentiment rather than points of real substance. Non-hunters are free to live according to their beliefs, and legitimate, ethical hunters should have the same freedom. Hunters should also be free from the need to explain, justify, or apologize for their sport in response to the ignorance of non-hunters.
Jon S. Strebler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
