Sea and Survival

Why do people continue to build in or near areas that are constantly barraged by forces of nature? I am always amazed that after floods, hurricanes, volcanos, mud slides and tornados, people rebuild their homes as if that was the one and only time this would ever happen and they are exempt from it ever happening again. When homes are built on unstable ground or near a coast prone to hurricanes or serious erosion, their owners are asking for problems. After a high insurance claim, many homes are deemed "uninsurable" yet people continue to rebuild. I do agree with these graduate students that these "lessons...need to be incorporated into ordinance," in order that we do not pay the high price (in our insurance policies) for these "ecological lessons" (17)

Below is a link I found with the song "Old Cape Cod," sung by Jerry Vale, along with a beautiful slide show. I lived on the Cape with my boyfriend and child in 1979 and it was the most beautiful experience of my life. I loved the dunes; back in those days one could walk for miles or run on them. Now it is prohibited in order to prevent erosion of the cliffs and to protect the plant species that grow in the primary dunes. I lived next to the Highland Lighthouse of Truro and was friends with the lighthouse keeper so was fortunate to have been able to go inside on several occasions.

The lighthouse was originally built 500 feet back from the edge of a 125 foot cliff (dune) in 1797. Due to erosion of an average of three feet per year (one year it eroded 40 feet due to a severe storm), by the 1990's it stood about 100 feet from the edge. With federal funds and money raised by concerned citizens, the Highland Light (as it is called by locals) was moved 450 feet from its original location in 1996.

Would this be considered a "simple ecological lesson" (17)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdNcRuJ1vME

I really enjoyed reading the chapters from the book, The Man Who Knew Islands, by David Quammen. Having spent time in the Amazon region in 2005 I can truly relate to Alfred Wallace's dismay when first embarking upon his journey and discovering there was a big difference between an abundance of a certain species and a diversity of species. When I first arrived in Equador I was told there were 85 different kinds of Hummingbirds so I expected to see hummingbirds everywhere, practically bombarding us as we walked through the region. That did not happen. However, if one is ambitious enough to wake up at 5:00 in the morning and try their luck (and patience) at birdwatching, you may be fortunate to see a few variations of hummingbirds along with a few other species of animals in the several hours you devote to that passion. I did see one monkey in the outing, and one hawk-like bird of prey. I also decided that birdwatching was not for me and can truly appreciate all the tedious hours and years that Wallace put into his work, only to have it all burn up in a fire.

There were some other interesting discoveries made on his journey in the field of Biogeography that I find fascinating. The fact that continental islands and oceanic islands differ in the way that they are formed: the former being attached to the continent and separated only by a submerged land bridge and the latter being created by volcanic activity out in the ocean (like Hawaii and the Galapagos). Wallace points out that, "a continental island begins with everything and everything to lose... An oceanic island begins with nothing and everyting to gain" (54). He also notes that one needs to study islands to gain insight into evolution (55).

Whatever happened back in 1858 with regards to who came up with the idea of Natural Selection, Darwin or Wallace, both were men dedicated to the notion and science of evolution. Both men had their ideas and worked hard to prove their theories, but it bothers me to think that all my life I have attributed the idea of Natural Selection solely to Darwin when, after reading these chapters, believe perhaps that I have been wrong. Wallace put his whole heart and soul into his findings; he spent four years in the Amazon, isolated and lonely collecting plant and animal species only to have them go "up in smoke" on his return to England. He then traveled to the Malay Archipelago to study for another couple of years, revealing his findings to his friend, Charles Darwin who appears to have gotten most of the credit. I don't undermine Darwin's work, but realize that the History and Science classes from my youth need to be revised and retold, giving credit where credit is due.

I just finished reading The Panopticon's Changing Geography by Jerome E. Dobson and Peter F. Fisher, which has put my brain into a spin. I was raised in the era of George Orwell's Big Brother scare and when small hand held computer games, such as the Texas Instrument "Speak and Spell," were introduced, refused to buy one for my daughter because I thought it may have some sort of chip in it to detect where we were at all times. My friends thought I was kind of crazy but it wasn't long after that cell phones came into existence and have the capacity to do just that. Now with the Panopticon III in existence, it is possible to track anyone or anything, anywhere or anytime. With this invention, and with more years of maturity (I think), I now have mixed feelings. First, I think it is a great idea to substitute a tracking device rather than a jail cell for prisoners. The economical factor is the most beneficial considering what it costs to house a prisoner for a year versus one who is wearing such a monitoring device. Secondly, it sounds like a great idea for a parent to equip a child with one such device in the event of an abduction, however this is where the clash of views comes in. Where does one draw the line between normal (or is it?) monitoring of a child for his "own protection" and monitoring a child for our "own curiosity?" What seems like a good idea for the prevention of a crime can and will be abused if placed in the wrong (or evil) hands. What a great idea to be able to send you teenager on his first date and be able to know where he/she is at all times, under the watchful eye of mom or dad. Or even better, you'd be able to leave town for a couple of days (or weeks) and know your child is at home in the evenings, doing homework of course, and at school during the day (add a bit of electroshock when your son/daughter gets a little out of line and you have full control). As is mentioned on page 316, put in the hands of a suspicious boy/girlfriend, there could be serious problems.

The technology is here, and along with the technology are people who will abuse it and use it for their own selfish desires. Where do we draw the line? It is comforting to know that people can be tracked with their cell phones, as was the case last year with the family snowed-in on an Oregon mountain road, or in several cases of kidnapping solved by tracking a cell phone, but on the other hand, is it good to always be "track-able?" If microchips can be implanted into animals, it can surely be done with humans. I have a problem with this as I do feel it is an invasion of privacy. Where cell phones are optional; one doesn't need one and can opt to not carry one knowing that he is traceable. And cameras in public places are helpful as a deterrent of crime, maybe not preventing all crime as the authors state, but for most of us "normal" people: Don't do anything wrong to worry about being photographed! But a device that can track our every move, against our will or choice, is a bit unconstitutional don't you think? It will be interesting to see where this goes in the future. And always remember: BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

Is anyone following what is going on in South America? Sounds like troops are lining up along the borders of Colombia. Our buddy Chavez in Venezuela has sent 9,000 troops to the border and Ecuador has sent some as well. Bush is backing Colombia's president. Will be interesting to see what happens in that region over the next few days or weeks. It's almost frightening to me as I spend time in South America each year.

It was interesting to read Parson's article, A Geographer looks at the San Joaquin Valley. I have driven through there on many occasions and it has always intrigued me as a farming community, but I had no idea just how many different types of crops were grown there. Another interesting point Parson made was the diversity of ethnicities living in the region: from Dutch to Laotians, Armenians to Japanese, Russians to Filipinos. I had always assumed that the majority of the population was Hispanic, yet only 20 to 30 percent of the population live in each county (379). Although this was written in 1986; 20 years has probably changed that figure. This article has given me a stronger desire to eat food grown closer to home. So much of our produce is being imported from South America, yet it is out of season. It makes more sense to me to eat more locally and more seasonally. Most likely a lot more healthily!

Parson's also mentions that one-half of the new house buyers in Modesto commute to the Livermore valley or to the South Bay. It seems like such a long commute but I personally know of someone who does this every day. He lives in Turlock and commutes two hours each way to work in the South Bay area. This I can relate to as I commute nearly two hours to UNR each way but I only do it twice a week. My friend, by the way, also lives in a house that was constucted off of a railroad car back in the 60's. The railroad car now is the dining room/kitchen (which was the original home), and the rest of the house spills out from there. Quite an interesting specimen.