whatever comes out

I'm kind of forcing myself to write tonight, so I don't have anything really profound or touching. I have a bit to say about America. I have a very confused vision of this country. Deep down I have the feeling that this is the greatest country on Earth. I think the majority of Americans should feel that, as should any other nationality feel about his or her country.

I am torn between various political views. Environmentalism and Abortion are my latest hot topics. Mix in relgion and it becomes extremely complex. I am not sure if my audience is someone who could give me a final good vs. evil bent on the topics or if it someone who has a good vs. evil view on the topics. Of course, at the offset, I suppose that the first audience would be omniscient in all things, and the latter audience would have an incorrect argument. But I shall rant, anyway.

For me why I am somewhat environmentalistical is through studying various ge0logical facts and processes in a geology class intended for engineers. It is a well known fact that us humans have an impact on the land. And this would be true and not so damaging if all we did was walk around and live in teepees or grass huts. It would still be damaging, though; don't mistake that fact. There would still be tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes, etc. And either teepees or grass huts can impact the environment when there are so many people gathered together in not so many places.

But well, in pretty much all of America, we don't just live in teepees or grass huts. We use wood and metal and rocks to build homes and buildings. And well, for the most part, we don't grow wood, metal, or rocks. Because they are already here. And in each case it is not without effect when we take them. Nor is it without effect where we put them after we take them.

So, in short, it can appear quite unfriendly and even almost dangerous, environmentally, to live.

But science has taught us many many things which allow us to cope. Like how to dam a river and collect drinking water for sizeable communities. How to live sanitarily and thereby live longer, healthier lives. How to build buildings many stories high so many people can work and live on very little land. How to blow up a mountainside and prevent rockslides or avalanches.

Man is trying to make the land conform to his plans. And the truth of the matter is that despite the best of man's efforts, given time, the land always wins. California is slowly receeding from mainland US and there is nothing man nor science can do to stop it. Beaches are inevitably growing or shrinking constantly. Canyons are becoming wider. And on each and every one of these examples, the US government becomes involved.

Now that I've written all this, I'm not sure what I'm trying to say.

I shall demonstrate my catch-22 situation with an example.

I really enjoy camping in the mountains. But where there are humans, many animals stay away, needing to change their migration route, feeding grounds, etc. If one animal stays away, it affects the populations of other animals since they are not eating grass or berries or killing prey. So, hence, if I want to camp in the mountains, I am making a choice to affect the very biosystem I am going to enjoy. And if I go camping, nature still has the upperhand because there is no way for campground management to remove invasive, bold rodents, so I have to change my behavior in order to avoid being bothered by them. As the rodents invade, their food diet changes, affecting their behavior even further. As the behavior becomes more and more troublesome, wildlife management must take further action, eventually exterminating the animal, again affecting the biosystem, which will eventually make the area uninviting to me and I won't want to camp there anymore.

And so the campground puts up signs warning campers not to feed the animals, and they are limited to how many sites can be at one campground, etc.

I have not seen a wildlife management system which has not at one point or another tried to effect change without upsetting the very people who require that they be there.

many other environmental issues have people pressing for various legislation and actions which it seems to me have just as much if not more impact than the original action or legislation. I am curious to know how environmentalists envision the world according to their standards. And can they do it and support a growing population?

But I am not completely comfortable with the way we live now, either. I feel there must be a way to live which does not require us to depend on science so much.

What do people think who thing negatively about science?

Perhaps it is not science so much as how people revere science. I mean how many science fiction horror stories have been written about a society where science was more important than love or any emotion at all?

But people will ask if scientific advances have improved our lives. I think the science of psychology is one which, while it still has its own catch-22s, has improved our lives incredibly. Psychology has learned how to treat people suffering from depression to enrich their lives simply by thinking differently. There is the argument that technology creates depression, though, but I find psychology as extremely beneficial for man.

alright this is already too long; I think i have gone on a few tangents. I liked writing this one, though, rough draft-ish though it be.