blog
The Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition is run by the Natural History Museum in London and the BBC Wildlife Magazine. This year’s overall winner is Steve Winter for his photo capture of the rare snow leopard.
Photos from competition will be exhibited at the Museum from the end of October 2008 to April 2009.
The Prix Pictet is a global prize for photography aimed at highlighting the problems of climate change. This year’s theme was “water”. The 100,000 Swiss Franc (over USD 88,000) prize was awarded to Benoit Aquim for his series of photographs on the human-induced desertification in China.
The BBC also has a nice slide show with commentary on other photographs and short listed photographers.
I was lucky enough to catch the rerun of the BBC program The Dodo’s Guide to Avoiding Extinction. Told from the point of view of the extinct dodo this documentary gave ten pieces of advice on, as you might have guessed, how to avoid extinction. I think the points are worth listing, so here they are, along with my paraphrase and summaries. I watched it in Japanese so that my three-year-old can follow it. Surprisingly, he thought it was interesting. He is going to be an environmentalist when he grows up … I hope.
The points are my translations from the English to the Japanese dub and back into my English paraphrase.
1. steer clear of human beings
Animals (as if we are not animals) should avoid coming into contact with human beings at all cost. Coming into contact with them is risking extinction.
2. adapt
Adaptation is an important ability needed if a species is to keep up with human beings.
3. don’t live on an island
This is an extension of No.2. By living on an island a species evolves without change which, in itself, is a death sentence since non-native predators, once entered into the environment, will wipe the docile species out without much resistance.
4. don’t be a sitting duck
The example they gave is a North American bird species which was so passive that by scaring, pointing and shooting indiscriminately into the sky with a rifle, hunters (no matter how bad marksmen they were) were able to kill off the entire species in perhaps half a century. Estimates are that without trying they had killed on average 250,000 birds per day.
5. breed like rabbits
Australia was the example. In the early twentieth-century twelve pairs of rabbits were were brought to the planet’s largest island (or smallest continent) for research. They escaped and bred … as rabbits do. Ten years on, the population in the wild was four million from just twenty-four cuddly bunnies. That is the definition of success.
6. Get some help
Sometimes humans can “do” good. Cloning was the example given. Some species have survived because we keep them alive through genetic science. But we really should think about the reasons why we are doing it, because I don’t think it’s because we are altruistic in nature.
7. don’t be attractive to human beings
Tigers are simply so cute and loved by human beings that there is a market for their body parts. Whether it is for their fur or organs for Chinese “medicine” their population have suffered for it. Moral of the story: just don’t be liked by humans.
8. be very lucky
This isn’t the first mass extinction on the planet. It’s the sixth apparently. Everything from asteroid strikes to world devastating volcanic eruptions have wreaked havoc on Earth. Just think dinosaurs. While the first five were naturally caused extinctions, the sixth is more than likely to be (mostly) man-made.
9. don’t be too smart
Human beings’ ability to control and manipulate everything is uncanny. The way I see it is that we are the cancer of the planet and it perhaps would be a better place without us.
10. don’t worry, life will continue
The fact that the planet has had the power to rejuvenate itself time and time again is a reason we shouldn’t worry. It may take some beating but it always comes back with a vengeance. The planet is more resilient than we think. But don’t let this be a licence to do as we please. Hopefully we can prove to be smarter and wiser than that.
*
If you get a chance I do recommend that you watch this underrated program.
“Charity begins at home,”
… as the saying goes. And in our post Bail-out world it literally does mean this.
This years topic for Blog Action Day is poverty.
Join other bloggers to highlight this problem, to talk about it in a renewed fashion. It is an important issue that every person who can afford to give a little should give a little time to (as well as some money).
If you haven’t noticed already I haven’t been blogging much lately. There is no doubt I am still very much driven to do something for the planet. It needs to be done not only by myself but by every one else also. I alone cannot do it.
That was one reason I started this blog – to motivate others to act on behalf of the future of our “home”. This is fine as an activity but still it isn’t enough. The saying “practice what you preach” though well worn is still very much valid advice.
Being as busy as I am something has to give way and that something, I have decided, is blogging.
Soon I will be completing my studies. I will be starting my life again as a teacher. I will also be continuing to focus on raising my children, teaching myself how to grow food and to live sustainably, and to become more active locally in making the world a better place. I plan to do this one person at a time, starting with myself. Then family at a time. Then one community at a time. Then one people at a time. Then, finally, one planet at a time.
So when this blog will restart, I do not know. Perhaps next year. Perhaps never. Maybe becoming more active is activism enough. To be honest I don’t have the answers to this question. I do know, though, I still need to do something to make the world better and right now that something isn’t blogging.
So thank you for your attention. It has been enjoyable. I have learnt a lot from all of you. And I hope I have made a difference to your lives also, how ever small and positive.
Is it possible to blog on indefinitely, sustainably? This question has bothered me for some time, because it is something I have had to face myself.
A fellow blogger who had started around the same time I started this blog has called it quits, at least in the non-profit form. He has decided to concentrate on freelance writing to which he has my full support. If one’s writing is good enough for it to be paid work – if there is a readership that can turned into a livelihood – then go for it.
How sustainable is blogging, especially the kind we do – topic-based blogging? There are four important qualities, I think, which is necessary for a (niche) blog to work.
Familiarity
Undoubtedly the most important quality. Without thorough knowledge of the topic it is near impossible to sustain the writing. But this is only true if you are writing as a pundit. If you are writing from the point of view that of a novice and your personal experience so far then it will work. Then this type of blog is more akin to a journal blog – a record of your journey towards the goal of this knowledge.
Time
Without time to blog then no blog will survive. As a father, a full-time postgraduate student, a teacher and a blogger twenty-four hours is simply not enough. Something has to give. And I don’t think it is fatherhood, research, or my vocation. If you placed blogging up at the top then seriously something must be very wrong with your relationships or priorities.
Spirit of charity
Blogging – especially niche blogging – is truly close to charity… that is unless you have signed up for Adsense. But by and large bloggers have more sense than adsense (except if you are that good then you can cut a living from blogging). Most of us are just satisfied to share with other what we know and make new friends.
Sense of fun and enjoyment
Blogging has to be fun. Otherwise it will feel like a chore.
**
Of the four qualities I have three – familiarity, spirit of charity and a sense of enjoyment. Time is something which is hampering me here. While I do apologise to my readers sometimes for the lack of postings but I think they understand. But also these days my blog is generally supported by new readers rather than regulars. I think people all move on after a while.
Coming back to my friend and his blog I am not saying he lacks charity. His case is different because now he is choosing a professional path. And for that I cheer him on. To me, blogging is only sustainable if there are these qualities. Otherwise there is no inclination to write.
So I am checking out the US death toll statistics in the War Against Terror and I am bombarded by:
Not to mention there was a pop-up ad which my browser had blocked for me.
So my friend asks me why I hate advertising so much? And here is the answer. Some things are just tasteless and this is one of them.
It does not surprise me that our leaders want to rush headlong into untested “solutions” for our sustainability problems. They are not working for us but rather it is all about a paycheck which demands action and results rather than wisdom and judgment. But once in a while the opposition does speak out for us (humanity, whatever that means today) even if they do not have the power or listened to. But it is exactly because they have no power that we should listen to them; they do not have vested interests like most in positions of power.
The very reason why those who speak sense are not heard should be looked at seriously as a problem of society. The very systems which are supposed to be working for us are failing us. So when I ask “do we need to rush into biofuel?” one must also ask just exactly who is the “we” that is being represented? I certainly do not feel it is me or any of the other sustainability advocates out there.
“Does a dog have Buddha Nature?” a monk asked.
“Mu (No),” replied Master Joshu.
This is usually given as a first koan to Zen practitoners. It is the first koan in the Wu Men Kuan (Japanese: Mumonkan), one of the most important collections of its kind. A koan is a short example of sayings by Zen masters which reveal something of the truth. They are used as an aid to bring about Enlightenment. Zen students, particularly of the Rinzai School of Zen, are given koans to help them attain Enlightenment.
In a teisho (Dharma Talk) by Yamada Roshi he states that the answer should be obvious: all things have Buddha Nature (Buddhata). But here Joshu denies this when asked by a monk. Why? Because the monk is fixated on the answer and not the truth, to use a Zen analogy, mistaking the reflection of the moon in the water for the moon itself. Joshu was trying to “wake” the monk up from his delusion. And in this way Zen is a truly profound.
But the history of Buddha Nature has bothered me for some time now.
The school closest to the historical Buddha, Theravada (also called Hinayana) does not teach Buddha Nature nor is it a concept not within its discourse. The Pali Canon, the oldest writings based on the Buddha’s teaching, does not include this concept. It is only in the later works, the Mahayana writings, that we begin to find this concept. In other words, there is a probability that the concept was a later formulation. I say probability because there is also the probability that the Pali Canon may have ignored this teaching for reasons unknown. We can never be sure of this as we have lost important sources of information about the formation of the sutras.
All Mahayana schools believe that Buddha Nature (Buddhata) is inherent in all beings. However, some schools extend this to cover all things unconditionally. So to summarize there are three three possible views on this:
Given that there is no agreement among Buddhists some doubt then must be entertained as to its authenticity. This questioning must not be done out of one-upmanship but out of the true spirit of enquiry as to what the true nature of the self is. This idea is something akin to Dogen’s simultaneous acceptance and denial of Buddha Nature. It is a paradox but a paradox worth pursuing in order to come closer to Enlightenment, the highest ideal of the Buddha’s teaching which all schools do agree upon.
So does a dog have Buddha Nature? Well, the answer depends entirely on whether you are a Hinayana Buddhist, Mahayana Buddhist or non-Buddhist. If you are a Hinayana Buddhist the answer is, “What is Buddha Nature?” If you are a Mahayana Buddhist the answers is “Yes and no, but only if you are unenlightened, and you have to think about it, or if you have to ask”. If you are non-Buddhist the answer is “Who is this Buddha guy?”
I believe in public transport. I went car-less and licence-less until my late twenties.
Apart from being a low emission way to get around taking public transport means you can do other things with your time, like read. So UK’s call to the shift back to rail and other similar public transportation is a welcome voice.
There are other ways for governments to promote public transport, of course. Tax, for example. Back in the 1980s (not now) in Malaysia the automobile tax made owning a car for the average person impossible. So this meant most people (over 90 percent) rode motorbikes, a much more fuel efficient way to travel. And Malaysia being Malaysia this also meant seeing entire four-member families and their luggage zooming down highways alongside lorries. While I do not recommend this circus-like suicidal balancing act I do think greater taxes on cars is a way to reduce their numbers on the road. Singapore is a another good example of this. Back in the 1990s a Singaporean friend of mine told me the price of a Toyota Corolla was over three times for the same car in Australia or elsewhere (that is, some other “normal” country).
Apart from this Singapore also has special systems for limiting traffic. For example they alternate days between odd and even ending number plates, so there is only ever half the number of cars in certain zones (eg. congested city-centres) at any one time. And the fine is heavy if you are caught in the zone with the wrong number plate ending. You might say then what stops people from owning two cars, one with odd and one with even number plates. The answer is a lottery. It is near impossible to get even one car ownership licence in Singapore. And if you are wondering why they use such an elaborate system then just check how small the country is for its population.
While Malaysia and Singapore were not doing this out of concern for the environment there still is a lesson to be learnt in how governments can take action in slowing down consumption. But because government intervention (apparently now called public sector) is not in vogue these days we suffer for it. Personally I think we should have more government intervention, if it is the right kind. And the only way to ensure that is to vote the right people in.
signature103 