Let me start with a story.

On April 24th of 2013, exactly eleven years ago the Rana Plaza building in Dhaka, Bangladesh folded onto itself causing the deadliest "accidental" structural collapse in human history.

In mere instants 1134 people, mostly women, were killed, while they were manufacturing fast fashion clothes for the Western market.

If you, as a normal human being, think it is unacceptable that people die for your clothes, there is a very easy way of fixing this issue.

It can be done, in fact, we’ve done it throughout the whole of human history, up until very few years ago.

My mother, my father, both office workers, laid out their clothes for the week on Sunday night to wear on Monday morning, and wore them until Friday.

It was absolutely normal for my parents' generation to change clothes only once a week, if not accidentally stained. There would be “office clothes” and “home clothes”, and they would be aired out when not in use.

That was my parents’ generation, and they were lucky enough to be living during the European economic boom. My own grandparents used even less clothes, and those lasted a long, long time.

Saint Marketing (the manipulation science that does miracles) has us absolutely convinced that we "NEED" to change clothes at least once a day, otherwise we would be... weirdos.

Saint Marketing has us also absolutely convinced that we "NEED" to “follow the trends”.

We follow trends feeling compelled to buy new clothes every season or even more often, so that we can be accepted within a (very sick) society that, by doing so, would consider us as “normal” members of its structures.

But we only have so much money to dedicate to the purchase of new clothes, therefore the demand of cheaper and cheaper garments and accessories of very low quality pushes the creation of new markets in producer countries.

Manufacturing plants are opened around the world and especially in South-East Asia: Bangladesh is, in fact, the garment capital of the world. But margins on cheap products are very, very small, so costs are cut. Salaries, safety, rights.

People who have been displaced by the fabricated "needs" of Saint Marketing, changing climate conditions and/or the purchase of their ancestral lands by multinational conglomerates that need to grow, amongst other things, fabric fibres to make cheap clothes, are left with only few options, amongst which is finding work in those manufacturing plants.

Life in the boons is surely hard, it depended on the seasons, the rains, the weather that is being upset by overuse of natural resources, by our overconsumption.
Life in the cities and the plants is even worse.

It’s a vicious circle pushed by our unchallenged and often unconscious belief that, if we don’t consume clothes at a breakneck speed, we won’t be accepted in our occidental society.

Most of the time we don’t even realize we abide by that illogical and nefarious belief.

Until we challenge that belief that was, without us asking for it, thrust upon us by the world we live in, we won’t be able to change it. Change will come only by facing it and acting in consequence.

And that’s very much up to us.

No false "need" for cheap clothes pushed onto us by deeply studied market strategies would mean no land grabs, no manufacturing plants that can’t guarantee rights, safety and a decent life to their workers, no immense landfills where all our clothes go to die, mostly after only a few wears or even none at all (look up Atacama clothes landfill in Chile and Accra in Ghana).

Buy less, local, trusted and quality, as much as you can.

There are many people in the world who can’t afford top quality clothes, but please, don’t hide behind that excuse. Sit down and seriously add up all you clothes expenses and you will probably find out that, by buying less, most of us are able to buy higher quality clothes, shoes and accessories, that will last a very long time. And everything else, really.

You have the choice: either follow trends that push us all towards an insane belief that we "need" to change our whole look every so many weeks, literally eating our planet while doing it, or just ignore them and live a more just, and free, life.

Personally I don’t mind rotating my clothes so that I wear different things every day. I wash them when they need to be washed, and use them interchangeably until that point.

There’s no need for me to go back to what my parents or grandparents used to do, but there’s no need to buy clothes every few weeks either.

I really hope we will all make the right choice.

I have no kids, do you?

Will AI decide the US next president? That's the title of an episode of BBC's Enquiry podcast, only one of the many, many media bits about the issue.
But the US presidential election, as important as it might be, is but a single example of how our lives will be changed by new technology.

Think about it. We all know someone who constantly boasts about things they didn't do, or always promises stuff they’ll never be doing. Sure, some things this person tells us are true, but after we realize that many aren’t, we just stop believing them. In Spanish there’s a saying that goes “Build yourself a reputation and get to sleep”. It means that reputations maintain themselves with very little work once they exist, be it positive or negative.

But back to AI and how our lives will be changed by it. Up until now we didn't need to be physically present to experience something happening far away, we had images, video and audio of those events that proved they really happened. An image is stronger than a thousand words, right? Radio, TV, newspapers and magazines have been in our lives forever.

Well, now AI allows anybody to create whatever image, video or audio we please.

So the main issue, at least for me, is: "how much information do I receive from digital sources, and how much do I receive from analogue sources?".

Until now the need for differentiating between the two sources didn’t exist, we knew that technology didn't allow for any of it to be transformed in such a way to be credible. That has changed, profoundly, an now thinking what will happen when we can't believe anything we digitally see or hear will be well worth our time and effort.

I know my neighbours are on holiday because I don't hear them walking down the stairs in the morning to go to work. I know the waitress at my local coffee shop is getting married because she told me so, in person. That is the kind of information I get the "analogue" way. Information I saw and heard and touched and smelled and tasted on my own.

All the rest is "digital" information. TV, radio, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Tick-tock, Discord, WhatsApp, Line... THE WHOLE INTERNET.
All that can, and will, be tampered with.
This very writing that, in this case, was written by me, a human being... but how can you be sure?

From now on, the whole bulk of information we are exposed to, which is online information, will need to be questioned. The only information we will be able to fully trust is the one we physically perceive with our five senses, with our flesh-and-bone body. And if everything we watch and listen to online can be fake, and if we have no real way of discerning what is fake and what isn't, will we react the same way as with the human liar above?

Will we instinctively go back to reality in the year 1990 when the internet wasn't a thing, and re-build an analogue world in which we can live a human-sized existence? Will we end up using the internet exclusively as a mere source of entertainment?

Many people weren’t even alive before the internet, it might be impossible for them to imagine that kind of world. But many people did experience a purely analogue life. it wasn't too long ago that we lived this way, it was perfectly normal.

I don't think we necessarily need to be scared about going towards a 2.0 version of that life. We just need to get used to it.

It can be done, in fact, humans have lived in an analogue world for most of their history, and many people are already reducing online time by choice, and getting rid of devices that, let’s be honest, take up a large chunk of our lives in detriment of the quality of relationships with the people who are, physically, around us.

Of course there’s no way of going back to a pre-internet world, the world wide web is here to stay. But the internet is a tool, and as every took we can choose how to use it. Maybe the rise of AI will force us to go towards a more human-scale society in which even digital connections can be on a personal scale, like when I talk to my mother in another country on WhatsApp. That wouldn't be too bad, would it?

Or maybe there will be an AI escalation where we would need to filter each bit of online information to AI filters to make sure it's not something created by... AI... 😅

This new technology opens a whole world of possibilities, but as with everything else, there will be drawbacks too.
Never being able to believe digital information is definitely one of them. What you do from here is up to you.

What happens when a tree dies close to a river, or to the sea shore? Easy: wood floats so currents take it with them, together with its inhabitants. Once it’s in the water more creatures take advantage of this drifting island full of organic nutrients, floating debris are in fact one of the mechanisms that allow species to expand geographically. Of course trees decompose, and the expansion of the species that depend on them unavoidably happens according to the decay timeline of their rafts.

But what happens when rafts never decay? Since the 1950s we have discarded tons and tons of a material that’s mostly lighter than water, a lot of which eventually ends up in the seas: plastic.

And we are not slowing down, on the contrary.

Half a century later we realized that all that plastic that ended up in the oceans, would concentrate in areas where it was corralled by currents. In 1997 the “Pacific Garbage Patch” was finally discovered, and it was only the first one. Plastic waste is collected within all gyres, the areas around which ocean currents rotate, and gyres are everywhere.

Now we know of the “North Atlantic Garbage Patch”, the “South Atlantic Garbage Patch”, the “North Pacific Garbage Patch”, the “South Pacific Garbage Patch” (yes, there are two mayor “Patches” in the Pacific Ocean), and the Indian Ocean Garbage Patch”.

These are only the mayor ones, the ones that were large enough for us to name. But plastic concentrates in all gyres, large and small.

Basically, and even if they are way less visible than large landfills, our waters are chock-full of plastic. But mind you, they rarely look like this.

I’ve been following and sharing the work of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for many years, during which I was in awe of their actions and surprised by their decisiveness and effectiveness.

At the same time I was always in a way waiting for the other shoe to drop.

By following and supporting many organizations that claim to fight for worthy causes since I was a kid -WWF, Greenpeace, PETA to mention a few, even national ones like Igualdad Animal and Anima Naturalis (both in Spain)- I’ve come to recognize a pattern of evolution in all of them, and I was wondering when this process would take place in Sea Shepherd.

When these associations are young and don’t have many members, they are vital, swift, effective. They scream to the world “this is something we all need to look at, and we need to do something about it soon!”.

These actions are very visible, and are what bring the organizations that carry them out to the attention of the public. At that point more people think their message is worthy of their support, and join up.

Mind you, I have nothing against panthers, and absolutely nothing against little tame cute lap dogs.

I just recognize the difference between the two. The first change the world, the second give us joy and happiness. Both are important.

But they don’t work the same way.

I’ve seen this transformation in all of them, last of which Sea Shepherd. It sadly and inevitably got to the same point as all the rest.

Let’s make one thing very clear: I do not think that any organization that evolves into a “lapdog” leaving its young enthusiasm, fierceness and speed of action behind, is useless. But it definitely has a different societal role than the one it originally had.

"Evolved NGOs" are essential for liaising with governments and reach lawmakers. This is also how society changes.

A very different story is carrying out non-violent direct action, though.

What many NGOs do in their beginnings is push us to look long and hard at a certain issue in its raw form, without any filters, as it really is.

It’s like if someone takes our face with both their hands and turns it so that we can see what we don’t.

“Look!”, they scream in our ears. And that scream might bring us to question something we never did, something we inherited from our parents, family, the society we live in, without ever having agreed to it.

That is their main role.

And that’s definitely what Sea Shepherd did, for many years. The right they claimed to enforce international agreements -signed by oh so many countries that never moved a single finger- to protect the lives of hundreds of living beings, was what made me and many others fall in love with the organization.

The results were evident, the disruption to unlawful actions was as deep as to have even governments worried.

So more people joined. And we know that, even if we agree on one matter with many other people, we might disagree on all the rest. Wanting to save whales doesn’t make us all of one single mind.

Aside from money, this seems to be the natural mechanism that pushes the evolution of NGOs. The more people have the right to make their opinion part of the organization, the fastest this organization moves towards “tepid”, the middle, the safe.

The voices that call for the daring and controversial actions that cause disruption to an oblivious society are deemed "extreme" and are drowned by the ocean of voices that call for “reason” and “working within the system to change the system”, which is obviously much more comfortable and safe.

It's not that I consider worrying about personal safety a negative thing, on the contrary. I never participated in any of the Sea Shepherd actions because I’m the sole responsible for my family, should anything happened to me they would literally starve (my family are street animals, adopted or fostered). I've always been deeply aware that participating in a Sea Shepherd campaign would not only take me far from my responsibilities for a long time, but it would also put my personal integrity and liberty in danger.
So there, I said it, I’m the first who worries about personal safety, you can quote me.

This doesn’t mean that somebody else isn’t willing and able to risk life and livelihood for a cause they believe in. As many used to within Sea Shepherd.

This is what I admired. And this is what is now lost.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has finally turned the page from their origin story -a change that was drawn out for years- and has evolved from a fierce non-violent active-action organization to an NGO that asks governments for permission before doing anything.

Which is, I insist, also good. But not the same. “Evolved NGOs” that concentrate their efforts into collaborations with governments and legislative bodies can influence changes in laws and policies. Yes.

But to have the necessary weight to exert that influence, there needs to be a previous step. And this previous step is exactly what they aren’t doing any longer: non-violent direct action.

Without society noticing, “evolved NGOs” would have no teeth.
The scream is the very first step for change.

It saddens me that Sea Shepherd, the “Pirate of the Seas” as it was labelled by US courts, lost its fangs.

As for me, I’m married to no NGO.

An organization is only a bunch of people who do what they think is right. If I realize my priorities no longer match with the priorities of the people behind a name, I look for another group.

Fortunately I’m not the only one noticing this “panther to lapdog” transformation, and I’m not the only one who thinks that a first shout is an indispensable catalyst for change.

So please, take a honest look at the organization you are supporting right now, and ask yourself if it’s still operating in line with your vision of the world.

If it isn't, be assured: new groups will form. They always do.

They will occupy the streets with their shouts and force us to look.
With time, as victims of their own success, they too will evolve into milder versions of themselves.

And I will leave them behind too, following the action that brings change.

As for you, I hope you will never stop looking for a group of people who gives voice to your principles.

There will always be people in the world who realize the value of non-violent direct action.

Unfortunately these people are the ones who always bear the deception of the inevitable transformation of the groups we are part of.

Considering that human spirit also needs a recharge every now and then, when you meet a group of people that is risking their personal integrity and freedom for a cause you deem worthy, if they push you to think about something you never even considered, tell them. Help them. Support them as well as you can.

As an aside, I think it’s worth mentioning that, at the head of those small groups of people who change the world, there’s always a big ego. I think it’s important to recognize that too.

Personally I believe that it’s impossible to lead a strong and decided group of people towards a change in society, without a large ego.

That, as everything else in life, is a blessing and a curse.

A big ego pushes one to limits other people would not reach, which translates into real results.
But of course keeping it in check is a lifetime struggle, and it very often shows.

Big egos, large personalities, electrifying personas are what captivates our attention.

It is perfectly acceptable to approve of an “action” and not fully agree with the “person” who carries it out.

The words are starting to be said aloud.

Past are the days (almost ^_^) when saying that changing the system is the only way to go would earn you ridicule, when uttering such idea would cost you a tag of "anti-capitalist spinster".

The system we live in is killing the planet and killing us. There, it's been said on TV so it must be true. And don't dare label me as conspiranoid.

I don't always agree with what Monbiot writes (or says) but I find him to be a good channel to voice many of my own ideas to the greater public. Important ideas. And I definitely agree with what he is saying here. Watch the video HERE.

Let's not get hung up on plastic straws, leather made from potatoes and plates made from grass. Not even "green" fuel and renewable energy.

Missing in this intervention are two issues.

1. Natality. Having children might be one of our main biological imperatives, but it's not one of our rights. Apart from all that, think in which reality they will be living in 30 years and don't take a decision based on what YOU want, take it thinking of THEM. This is real. Children born today will live in a very different world by they time they are your age. Bringing them to life in that reality is YOUR responsibility.

2. The Main Solution. Well, now that we have pinpointed the core problem, what can we do? Easy: REDUCE YOUR CONSUMPTION. Yeeeeah... easy might not be the right word. In fact, reducing consumption (which is the ONLY REAL way to fix the problem) is the main reason why this has never been proposed. Because by reducing our consumption at a global scale would disintegrate capitalism. The system has no way of surviving if we start consuming only what we REALLY NEED. In fact, it will crumble waaay before that (and we KNOW it). This means the dreaded loss of jobs and consequently an upheaval of unseen proportions to our way of living. We were born in the capitalistic system (yes, even communist countries), we have no idea how it will feel when it disappear.

And... what will happen once capitalism is dead? No idea. I usually say that, if I knew how to structure global economy post-capitalism, I would either have a Nobel on my mantle or a bulled in my head. I guess we will have to wing it as usual: trial and error. The only thing that's clear is that capitalism brought us here and, whether you consider it a positive or a negative thing, the time has come to let it go. We either do it as a conscious choice, in a way controlling the process, or it will happen all by itself, inevitably. The choice is not whether to keep capitalism or not, the choice is how much control we will have in seeing it go.

Reforesting the planed and allowing the oceans to recover MUST be done and it's easier than we thing: if we stop eating marine creatures fishing will stop, and considering that 60% of the world arable land is used for animal agriculture, stop consuming meat, eggs and dairy will leave plenty of space for forests. But this will take a long time to make a change, and it is not something YOU and I really have much of a say about.

Yes, it would be unreal to pretend that we can all change our diets and drastically reduce our consumption immediately after watching this video and reading these lines.

What's perfectly feasible NOW though, is starting the transition.

Let us all think about what we put on our plate, and let us make an habit of asking ourselves the basic question: is what I am buying right now REALLY NECESSARY?

Have a good future.

I'm so glad when I read certain kind of articles, it shows that something is changing, there's still hope. Because I really, really think that we can change what's happening to our environment only if we deeply modify our buying habits.

I liked the latest BBC feature about the issue of overbuying which doesn't focus on "just" the economic consequences consumerism can have, but also shines the light on the reasons behind the habit.

And really, these reasons aren't only what causes compulsive buying habits, but are behind MANY purchases we deem "normal". Just think about it.

"I didn’t have a completely debilitating shopping addiction". That's the phrase. "Normal people" living "normal lives" shop mainly because it distracts US from what we don't like to think about.

It's easier to go shopping than face something uncomfortable, be it a relationship that needs work to evolve and survive, our career and professional hopes and dreams, or dealing with self-esteem issues, feelings of inadequacy, loneliness, misery, discomfort or "only" boredom (the "sin" our culture is trying so hard to eradicate).

It's sooo much easier spending time and energy going shopping than facing all that, we "get a high when we shop, we get a hit of dopamine and have momentary feelings of good" instead of living an uncomfortable situation. A drug, basically. We sedate ourselves with our purchases.

It's not a solution, no avoidance mechanism is. "The impulse is to buy and when we do that, what’s really bothering us festers.".

Let's not fill our lives and our houses with useless stuff. Let's not allow what's important, what needs to be taken care of, to be left in a dark corner with the hope it will go away by itself. It never does. Let us not sedate ourselves with a non-solution that only worsens the situation.

The "secret" is awareness. Be aware of why you are online surfing all those shoping sites, why you are spending the whole afternoon at the mall. These are not fun places, they are places where you can do nothing but buy stuff. Fun is something else.

Ask yourself: do I really need what I'm about to take home?
This should be the question you ALWAYS ask yourself (several times!!!) before taking out your "paper or plastic".

The first obvious consequence of reducing your purchases is that you are left with more money at the end of the month. You can start paying up your debts faster if you have them, which is always a relief. Or, as in my case, you discover that you need to work less hours to be able to cover your expenses. It's liberating.

You also have plenty more time!!! I remember when I used to go to the mall to "take advantage" of the end-of season offers... The hours I spent there, in a deeply unpleasant environment with garish neon lights in my eyes, shrill music and voices in my ears, artificially pumped air in my nose and besieged on all sides by a throng of stressed-out people... and I definitely was one of them.

Now I go to the beach instead. :-)

I'm finally seeing the back-panel of my wardrobe and making sense of what's in my home. It gives me peace, not only because I know what I have, but also because I know that
I don't chuck out things that are perfectly OK anymore, only because I just got home with 5 bags full of new stuff... newer stuff.

In fact, keeping a lid on my purchases doesn't only save space, but it also means that when I do buy something it's because:
1. I really (REALLY) need it, in the original sense of the word
2. I like it, I really, really like it and I enjoy using/wearing/looking at it
3. It's good quality and will not turn into rubbish in a couple of months

This makes me appreciate what I have. How nice is that? ^_^

Lastly, this is something I realized several years ago, that helped me on my "degrowth" path:

The more stuff you have, the more you worry about it, the more you need to do to keep it, and the less freedom you enjoy. Of course we can't live with nothing, we need a roof over our heads, food every day, clothes on our backs, shoes on our feet. The same goes for our families, naturally, and we also need things to achieve what we want/need to achieve, be it work or fun. We might need a vehicle to get to work, and a pair of walking shoes to go wandering, I'm not telling you to give that up. If it's necessary for your life (work usually is) and it gives you real pleasure, wonderful!!! It's a real need.

I'm only asking you to be honest with yourself when reviewing what you think you "need". It might be surprising to realize how unimportant some of those "needs" are, and how important others are... like going hiking ^_^!

There's a phrase in the article I liked... This is an "antidote to gluttony". Slim down your life, it's usually healthy ;-)!

Good dieting!!!

Firstly let me apologize, this one is a little long but I think that the holiday season is the perfect moment to put the thought out there.

Many of us have often issues with "gifters", be it people with a hobby that give us something that's hand-made, or someone getting rid of stuff (i.e. spring clean) and "gifting" it to us, or somebody else "buying to buy" (this happens especially with kids).

Personally I think that there's no way out of this situation but saying truthfully that we do not wish to be at the receiving end of certain gifts, as loving and thoughtful (sometimes) as they might be...

And let's face it, in many cases gifts have nothing to do with us and everything to do with the gifter's intention of getting rid (in a "positive" way) of what they make/have/buy, because they simply don't have any more room in their houses and their lives.

... and not be the "dumping ground" of a hobby or a house clean or a shopping habit? Sorry for the image, but sometimes I feel it's just like that...

At the end of the day, it is our responsibility to tell other people what makes us happy. When I'm on the other side, I'm sooo very grateful that someone close to me tells me, clearly, what makes them happy!!! It's so easy to give that way ^_^

This is how I see this issue, what do you think?

When the conversation gets around to the subject of which economic system is better for humanity, there is usually a “war” waged between capitalism and (socialism/)communism. This was the comment I left on a thread about how communism is horrible and capitalism is awesome (but only when it’s not regulated):

Capitalism and communism are only the systems we know best, we have experienced the fist on our own skin, the second from the News on TV… or our own skin in the past. So it seems that the choice is only between those two systems, and it's not.

One isn't better than the other. Neither work.

Capitalism doesn’t work because it's based on unlimited growth amongst other things (more about them here including the doubtful "benefits" of unregulated markets), and in reality we live in a finite planet where we are now seeing the effects of this capitalistic unlimited growth. In fact minimalism is degrowth, which goes against the essence of capitalism itself!

Communism doesn’t work because it doesn't take into account human nature when faced with scarcity, commonly created amongst most citizens in communists countries that are usually semi-dictatorial regimes (which is not really communism by the way, to me communist is only possible as a theory not applicable to humanity).

You say: “poverty followed by death was the only outcome of communism, just look at Cuba as the ongoing example”, but it's just in that country that something beautiful happened when the USSR went bust. The isle, its people as well as its government, had to go back to a more human-scale economy to survive, they had to adopt a system based on local natural resources for local consumption, and they did so quite successfully! By “success” I mean living a life which is worth living, not making tons of bucks, that's another concept we should revisit.
You might want to have a look at The Power of Community - How Cuba Survived Peak Oil.

Capitalism is destroying the only environment that allows the existence of us human beings by exponential growth.
Communism doesn't work because it basically relies on a few people's will to distribute "equally" available resources, and of course they come first.

Neither the former nor the latter is the solution.

On top of it, what you are all doing here, minimalizing your lives, goes absolutely against what capitalism NEEDS to exist. As a system, capitalism requires more and more production, and consequently more and more consumption. The issue is that not only do we live in a finite world, but our real needs are also finite. Of course, if we limited our consumption to those needs, capitalism would simply crumble.

The basis of capitalism is purchasing something at a price and selling it at an increased price, it can be a physical object or a service, in which case one "purchases" education. To the purchased object one adds value, be it through manipulation and manufacturing into a new product, or simply by adding convenience to it (i.e. transportation). This is how we all earn our wages.

So we have created a mechanism that generates unnecessary needs, and by believing that those unnecessary needs are indeed necessary to be happy, we are all pushed to buy and buy, allowing more products to be created (“adding value” to them at each step of the manufacturing system). Only like this, within the capitalistic system, can be ensure that we will be receiving our paycheck at the end of the month, which allows us to go out an buy more and more.

If the only way to “earn our living” is by manufacturing and consuming more and more, but our resources are finite, it should be clear that something is deeply wrong with the system.

There are other alternatives, and they all have many things in common to what happened in Cuba with the Organic Revolution: a return to life on the human scale. "Life" intended as everything, from the economy to all relationships.

Have a look at the Economy of the Common Good (more here) and the Universal Basic Income (more
here).

It's not surprising how people (especially ones living in a capitalist environment) think that nobody would "get out of bed, or live at all" without "the carrot" that capitalism wants one to believe he/she can reach: we were raised like that. In reality, and there are many examples of this, we would happily "get out of bed and live" (and even be more “productive”, but in a really positive sense), if we didn't need to worry about spending 8-10 doing a job we hate to pay for our living needs… This was an eye-opener for me, I also thought capitalism was OK. Now I know it's not.

Meritocracy (the carrot dangling if front of your nose) in capitalism is one of the greatest illusions that allows the system to go on. This one is quick (of course one can keep on investigating on the matter): On a Plate, a comic by Toby Morris. Yes a comic :-), it shows the basics of the issue very efficiently.

Communist doesn't work, and we have all seen that.
Capitalism doesn't work, and I hope we don't go extinct before understanding that.

The other systems, will they work? No idea. Until we have implemented them we won't know, but there are two things that we do know. The first is that nothing is perfect, and that any other system we might adopt will have its flaws, we will have to iron them out with time (and if the new system also doesn’t work, adopt another one). The second is that if one thing is sure, is that we can't go on as we are living now. We are degrading the planet at a rate that will not allow our life in a very short time. Something must change to stop this trend, capitalism ain’t it.


One last thing (yes I know...): Lowsumerism (from Low Consumerism). There is a very interesting video about the capitalistic consumerism and Lowsumerism, a movement born in Brasil recently, really educational. By the way, for its very nature, capitalism IS consumerism.

In the Minimalists documentary there's a clip where president Carter talks about overconsumption on national TV... After 9/11 president Bush went on national TV asking the nation to go shopping to support the economy...

Just sayin'…

What can I say, death is a recurring theme for me right now. Yes, it's not fun, it's not cool, it doesn't sell, but it's the situation I find myself currently in. Actually, it's the situation I have been in for the past few years. It might seem very sad, but living in this situation was the seed to a deep transformation for me. Because... Do you know what happens when you live with the concept of death in your daily life? It turns out that life itself becomes so much more precious, or at least that is my personal experience. The realization that one is alive, and the others around you are alive too, makes life REAL. And precious. And beautiful. And incredibly, unbelievably AWEsome. I realized that I am truly, deeply in Awe of life.

My family, my feline children are now 17 and a half years old. A beautiful age for the five of them. I am lucky enough for having the economic means to offer them all the care they need, but not only that. I am BLESSED for being able to give them the attention and the love they deserve in this phase of their lives. Not always, not all I would like to give them, but a lot.

On one hand, being aware that my family will cease to exist in a relatively short amount of time really takes a toll. And if you are reading this, please know that I am not very good at asking for help, probably due to the fact that most of the time I honestly don't need it. But sometimes I do :-), I know of nobody who is independent enough to live his or her life without anybody else, and I'm not an exception. If you read this, please take it as my way of telling you that sometimes, even if my mouth automatically says "it's all good", if you are available, really available to listen, maybe I will share with you that sometimes "it's not all good".

On the other hand, the truth is that I am accompanying my loved ones in their LIVES, and only at the very end, in their deaths too. Realizing how lucky I am to be able to do this is the blessing. The reality is that they are not dying, they are LIVING, and I CELEBRATE their life. How could I not!

Because life must be celebrated, right? To me, up to a certain point. I have witnessed with a ravished heart, that life is absolutely tenacious. Which is an extraordinary thing at certain moments when there is even one chance to "make it", but it can be a kind of curse at others. A living being does not want to die... it's as simple as that. He or she can be at the very end, enduring unimaginable pain and distress, and yet life will not let go. But there comes a point when there is no more future than agony.

Right now, both for humans as for other animals, many of us have at our disposal several methods for... sustaining life? Or, in some cases, prolonging death?

So, what choice shall be made when that difficult, horrible moment comes, when somebody needs to decide whether to live or die, or even (and this is yet more harrowing) decide if somebody else should go on living or not? In short, what is the rule in those cases?

To me, there is no rule. I look at society's insistence in finding a rule that can accommodate all cases relating to the matter of Life VS Death under its umbrella, as the very human need for avoiding a heart-wrenching decision in such instances. It's understandable, and I really wish there was a rule that could be applied in all those kind of situations, a rule we could all abide by with a light heart knowing with absolute certainty that we made the right choice (this also includes the matter of abortion which, of course, is also a case of Life VS Death).

But life is so much more complex than that. Life can't and won't be regulated, no matter how ample an "umbrella" might be. There is no rule that will help us decide, with absolute certainty and light heart, on life or death.

Life is too vast for a simple human-made rule.

Life gives us millions upon millions of "exceptions" that are nothing else than life itself. We are all unique individuals who live unique situations through time, at each point of our lives. After having had to take this decision too many times I know deep, deep down, that this choice is something that can only be made every time anew, considering each being and each situation. Every single time. I so wish there were a rule, it would make it all so much easier.

But there can't be.

We are hence left to decide. Every single time, battling nowadays with legislations that try to put life itself in a box, albeit ample, but never vast enough. Life, simply, won't be put in a box.

It is telling that physicians, a large percentage of all medical personnel and particularly specialized doctors, nurses and caregivers, prefer not to opt for many of the modern "life-extending" technologies they have at their complete disposal.

Over 75% of physicians will not subject themselves to reanimation procedures, and reject "live-sustaining" measures. Many oncologists and medical personnel working in oncology wards, would not receive chemotherapy treatment. And the list goes on. Why is that? Mainly it's because they know what those procedures really do to the human body, psyche and spirit, which is usually an increase of time "lived", but at the loss of a large percentage of quality of life.

So, why do WE, the laypeople, choose those measures? I see several reasons for that.

We don't know what they really mean, what the procedures themselves really do to us. Did you know for instance that being put on a ventilator means to artificially suppress your own breathing rhythm? Can you imagine how utterly distressing that is? Did you know that CPR is such a violent technique that it can and will break ribs in over 80% of the cases, possibly causing lung and heart perforations? And that it is fully effective for only 3% of the people who receive it, while another 2% will suffer from severe and deep deterioration of their health? And that another 3% will end up in a vegetative/comatose state? All this for such a "simple" (compared to the rest) intervention?
The list goes on. Extreme life-sustaining measures are NOT "for free". There are great tolls to be "paid" with our health (or with the health of our dear ones) by having them applied to us (or to them). To be completely honest, I personally will want any and all life-preserving and life-sustaining measures available to be applied to me in case of a sudden trauma. But after that, after life has been preserved, and depending on the situation, I will decide on whether to go on living or not. Or hope that the people next to me will have the courage to take that kind of decision. And in case of a degenerative illness, I know that there will came a moment when I will say stop, it's enough. To me, not all life is life-worthy. Plain biological functions of my physical body are not enough for me to consider them life. Unbearable pain is not life. Biological life without hope of remission or improvement is not how I want to be kept in this world. And of course, this puts me in the position of having to take that same decision for the beings I love, when they find themselves in a similar situation. And even if I know there isn't... I so wish that there were a rule.

Another reason is, of course, that all those procedures derive earnings to the centres that apply them. There's basically no economic gain in letting someone choose to spend their last days/weeks/months/years at home with their loved ones, relying only on pain medication. We all know that hospitals and clinics work with a budget, so do all public health systems too. There will be no legislations that allow or even encourage medical personnel to be open about the reality on this matter, no protocols implemented by hospitals and clinics. Not only because it's a sensible issue for the patients and their families, but also because to a centre that works on a budget, economically speaking it doesn't make any sense.

It's also a matter of "Quantity VS Quality": more time spent on this Earth and less quality of life (often basically none) VS a shorter time but a better quality of life. And really, who could blame anybody for choosing the first option? After all, we do live in a society where the notion that "More" is preferable to "Better" is shoved down our throat at all time. More food for the same price in every restaurant, "Pay 2 Take 3" in every supermarket, "Make more of your buck", more, more, more, even if we all know perfectly well that quality comes at a price. Discount insurance policies that don't respond when the time comes to assist, clothes that can only be washed a couple of times before they fall apart, even buttons on our screens for making more an more "friends" who... will they be there with us when we really need them? More, more, more. But... "better"? Where's the Quality of what we take home, what we introduce in our lives, in our hearts? We don't usually think about that, because we are constantly presented with the notion that "More quantity" IS superior than "Better quality". So to me it's not surprising at all when we choose "More time", instead of "Better time". We were raised like that.

But I think that the main reason, the most human of all, is that WE WANT TO LIVE. And of course we want our dear ones to do the same. But here I think that there is an all-encompassing ignorance about what the real cost is, of keeping someone "alive" under such extreme circumstances. I am more than sure that, if people outside the healthcare profession knew what some of those "life-sustaining" procedures can actually do to preserve our biological functions (or those of our dear ones) as well as their all-pervasive side effects, many more people would accept death as the best way of living. Even if it's for just a few more hours, a few more days. In fact, those who know all that, mostly elect not to "take advantage" of those "life-sustaining" measures, because they know that they don't really prolong life as we understand it, but only our biological functions. And we are much more than that. And our loved ones are much, so much more than that.

I had to think a lot about life and death in the last few years. It's the path that was laid before me and the one I chose to take (albeit mostly unconsciously, I must confess, but here is where I am today, no point not accepting it).

My conclusion on the matter of Life VS Death is that this matter can only be dealt with on a case-to-case basis, and that definitely life at all costs is no real life.

Being a vegan for several years, I had to come up with my personal definition of what "vegan" means. If you are not vegan, you might be surprised to know that there is no stone tablet from a mountain with the "divine" definition of the deep meaning of vegan. The basis of veganism is of course the recognition and the respect for the lives of others, mostly through the non-use of any animal products... But when the issue of the definition of Life itself is raised, there are as many opinions as there are vegans.

To me (and yes, this applies also to plant beings too albeit on a different scale, such reality is one I have to live with, but that's a story for another moment), the definition of veganism is:

"The right of any living being to live a life-worthy existence without any imposed suffering".

The "imposed suffering" part is because life entails suffering, as simple as that, There's no way to avoid all suffering, but each of us do have the option of NOT imposing suffering onto others, at least every time we are aware of doing so. This choice has, as a side effect, the ethical obligation to look deep into ourselves, empathizing at the same time with others, to make sure that we don't impose suffering on them without realizing it. And WE DO, much more often than we think possible. It's a long journey, an incredible and (to me at least) never-ending discovery that changed my life more profoundly that I could have ever imagined when I took the fist step. It still goes on and I suppose it will until the end of my life.

The "life-worthy existence" is the part I am writing about here... Not all life is worth living just because "it's life", at least to me. There are occasions when life is much, much worse than death. In my eyes death is an inextricable part of life (and not just my death), but we CAN avoid the most horrible, hopeless suffering. It makes (to me) no sense to accept that kind of suffering only for the sake of maintaining biological life. I came to this conclusion mainly BECAUSE I'm vegan. It's because I'm vegan that I can't accept life at all costs.

We basically forgot that death is an intrinsic part of life. We live in a society where life is the only side of the coin we want/choose/are encouraged to consider. Death is avoided almost at all costs. It's there, of course we know it's there, but it has become a sort of floating, disembodied and very abstract "notion" that hits us like a freight train when we are inevitably confronted with it... Our notion of death is so warped that (and this is something that I witnessed myself) when the father of one of my friends was on his death bed, the only thing she could say was "why, oh why is this happening to ME?". We don't know death any longer, it's not a part of our lives, so we are terrified by it and have basically no coping and protections mechanisms when we are inexorably confronted by it.

Only a couple of generations ago, death was still part of family and community life, family members cared for their loved ones until the very end, and then washed and prepared their deceased as part of their farewell rituals, even children were in contact with the reality that life ended at a certain point, there was really no way of avoiding it. With the advent of "civilization" death has become something we'd rather not think about... We let "professionals" handle our loved ones when they fall sick and eventually die, it might be too painful for us, although I honestly think that by doing so we have given up a fundamental part of the process of saying goodbye, of letting them go, of getting closure... Death is not a part of family and community life any longer. As we know, death is now a business which is conducted with extreme discretion, almost to the point of stealth and secretiveness, to avoid "negative" emotions like the pain of a loss. And as for everything else, fear comes from things that are alien and distant to us.

I personally find it really sad that those once unavoidable tasks have been lost in the "civilized world". In my opinion the loss of those practices is even more sad than having to touch, caress, wash, care for the lifeless bodies of our dear ones. And again, life has given me too many of those opportunities, this is just my opinion based on my experience.

Personally I have come to imagine those "negative" emotions we strive so hard to eradicate from our existence, in this case sadness, loss, even dismay and desolation that come from the passing of a dear one, as a spring rain. When I feel them, especially if they are deep and strong, I visualize my cells and I allow the emotion to permeate each one of them. After its work is done, after the necessary time has passed, this emotion exits from the bottom of the cells (eh, I live in a world of gravity, my visualizations work like that ;-) ) to enter and permeate the next cells. It's hard while the emotions go through every fibre of my being. It's really hard. And it can take a long time for a specific emotion to complete this process of going through all my cells. But when it is finished with its work, when the process is done, I look back at my cells and I can see them sparkling!!! The emotion, the one we define as "negative" has done its job, has cleansed them all, deeply. It has gone through all of them and, through the pain, it left them shiny and clear. It's as if a spring rain has renewed them completely, and left them incredibly clean, infusing each one of them with new... life.

On the contrary, the more we oppose the process of our emotions going through each one of our cells, as to say the process of grieving, the more the emotions in question get stuck in our body, mind and soul. We can carry with us an emotion related to a certain life event for a long, long time, if we don't allow it to go its natural course... And even if this process of "cleaning up our cells" is at times very painful, not allowing it to happen can be very detrimental for our health, on a psycho-emotional level as well as on a physical one.

And on this note, my first instinct was to apologize for writing a post on such a sad subject, but I'm not going to do so. Life is like that. Sadness, even if we have relegated it (together with all "negative" emotions) to the same out-of-sight place as death itself, is still part of life. And today I'm simply feeling like that. Tomorrow, an hour from now, a minute from now, I might be feeling otherwise, possibly because I could share my sadness this way...

So, as a thank you for listening, I give you this beautiful work.

Me? I'm glad that Leonardo di Caprio will take advantage of his contacts at the highest level to do what HE can, and I'm grateful to him for that. At the same time, I will DO what I CAN to avoid what is hinted in his documentary. Without waiting for anybody to save me or the planet.
My suggestion is that you do the same. NOW.

It's so easy to point our fingers at China, the "world's biggest polluter", conveniently forgetting that one US citizen pollutes ten times as much than a Chinese citizen, and one European citizen "only" seven and a half times more. It's not "a nation" that pollutes. It's the people, it's YOU and ME, individually.

It's easy to demand of countries like India NOT to live as we have lived for the last century, to "care for the environment". While we continue living exactly that way.

It's easy to blame deforestation on palm oil plantations, when WE are who consume products made with it, and if Big Industry didn't plant and buy palm, WE would still loudly claim for THE SAME PRODUCTS, but with a different oil that is even more destructive.

The solution is not blaming China, but reducing OUR energy consumption.
The solution is not blaming India, but reducing OUR lifestyle consumption.
The solution is not replacing palm oil with another oil that will cause as much damage (or even more!) to the environment, animals and human beings, but STOP consuming certain non-necessary products.
And by OUR I mean YOURS and MINE.

The solution goes through realizing that YOU and ME are causing this, and since YOU and ME are the cause, we are also the solution.

Before the Flood? A remake, An Inconvenient Truth 2.0. An updated version, as useful as it might be, of all the information we ALREADY HAVE. We have had it for at least 20 years.

It's time to stop gathering information. We evidently have more than enough to start ACTING.

Let's ACT. Let's change our consumption habits. Let's stop hoping that someone else will solve this situation, this can only be solved by YOU and ME acting. We will not hear that in newspapers nor in the news, decreasing consumption will mean the collapse of the societary model we are living in right now. It's scary, true. We don't know what kind of world we would live in if we changed the world we know. But... it's pretty clear that this way of living is bringing us all towards destruction. We really have no choice but changing and doing our best to create a better new world.

Let's start TODAY by thinking about what we buy, where we buy it, and above all, why we buy it.
Let's start TODAY by choosing NOT to put pain and death on our plates. Going vegan is "only" one step, but it's definitely something we can ALL do, NOW, that will influence YOUR and MY impact on the environment. It's simple. Many people, even around you, already do. Ask for their support during your time of transition, you will surely receive it.
I'm at your disposal.

For years I have been saying that I am not

Most people don't understand when I say that I'm not "that", that I'm ME.
Yes, I am "that" too... but I'm SO MUCH MORE, that none of those words can even begin to describe who I AM, not even those who depict the most important parts of ME. No word could ever do that. Not one million words. Not in one million languages. Not in one million years. Not me, not any living being.

Every time we describe ourselves with one adjective, or we accept that someone else does, we should make sure that the label we are putting on ourselves at that moment does not exclude all the rest we ARE.
Labels might be useful in certain situations, they allow us to communicate what part of us we bring forward at a specific moment. But they are far from being the whole picture, and should really not be accepted as such. Not by the society, not by the people who are around us, but mainly not BY OURSELVES.

When we start believing that the labels we -or society, family, faith, etc- put on ourselves ARE US (and it could be a thousand labels, with the ILLUSION that they COULD describe who we really are), we start automatically believing that labels on everybody else ARE THEM. This is when the idea of communalities and differences between "us" and "the others" is born into existence.

When I say that specieism is absurd -since the concept of "species" has been invented by US, imperfect beings (hence it's an imperfect concept with thousands of exceptions), and manipulated by US throughout the ages so that it fits OUR interests, separating living beings according to certain characteristics to which we bestow more importance, in detriment to others that we opt to deem "inconsequential"- again most people don't understand.

"Species" is one of the most deep-rooted labels in our conscious mind. And it is, as all labels, a divisory breach that separates "us" from "them", allowing unspeakable horrors to happen. And most people don't even realize that the concept "species" IS a label. A separation created by US, modified through time by US, used by us BY CHOICE, albeit usually a never-questioned one.

Swedish botanist Karl von Linné published, in 1735, a book called Systema Naturae in which he, for the first time, proposed the classification of living beings according to their physical appearance and method of reproduction. The concept of "species" was born, and has been accepted without questioning until today.

He decided, because it was convenient for his work, that aspect and reproduction are sufficient characteristics to separate us in this or that group that he called "species". And WE KEEP ON DOING IT. Even if we are not botanists, biologists, zoologists, even when that separation, based on those criteria, is of NO USE TO US! The funny thing is that, if he had decided to base the concept "species" on different criteria, maybe less useful ones... we might not even know the word "species"! And we might live in a very different world!

Of course, the concept "species" as based on the actual criteria is something very handy for categorizing living beings according to... well, aspect and reproduction methods. But we decide to use that classification even though we are not botanists, biologists, zoologists, researchers... We keep all beings neatly separated in those groups, even though we -who, according to the concept "species" belong in one "group"- feel more affinity with a dog, a bird, a fish, a cat, a cetacean -who are in other "groups"- than with certain humans, although (according to what someone else has decided) belong to our same "group"...

Why? Why do we decide to give more importance to physical appearance and reproduction methods, or even DNA, than for instance the natural emotional attachment between two beings? The criteria that define "species" are as important as we decide them to be. If we give more importance to other criteria... "species" becomes inconsequential.

A dog and a cat who grew together are family to each other, they KNOW they are. A tiger and a bear too. Nobody told them that they don't belong to the same... "species". What does that ever mean??? That two beings don't look the same and can't procreate? Why should physical traits and the ability to procreate be the two main characteristics that define WHO WE ARE??? Because someone who will never know us, has decided so?

It's time to take our own decisions on what is defining for us.
The cats who share and have shared my life in the past are MY FAMILY, so much more so than a hunter, a bullfighter, a women abuser, a child molester. No matter what the science we call "Biology" says.
What does "species" mean, when in reality we are all INDIVIDUALS who can't be described by mere words?

Who decides that belonging to a same group, be it "species", "gender", "faith", "caste", "age group", "race", should be more important than whan what we really are, than what we really feel?

This post has been inspired by poetry. Modern poetry, rare as it is.
I am copying below the text of this beautiful poem with the hope that it will help us all question all labels.
A video goes with it. It couldn' be otherwise, after all it's modern poetry. Watch it, it's beautiful.

Paraphrasing Prince AE...
Isn't it funny how no baby is born "human"?
Yet, every baby cares for others, be it another human, or a duck, or a dog, or a fish.

I am not Black
I mean, that’s what the world calls me, but it’s not... me
I didn't come out of my mother's womb saying, “Hey everybody, I'm... Black.”
No, I was taught to be black
And you were taught to call me that
Along with whatever you call yourself
It’s just a.... label

See, from birth the world force feeds us these.... labels
And eventually we all swallow them
We digest and accept the labels, never ever doubting them
But there's one problem:
Labels are not you and labels are not me
Labels are just ...labels
But who we truly are is not... skin... deep
See, when I drive my car, no one would ever confuse the car for.... me
Well, when I drive my ....body, why do you confuse me for my... body?
It's.... my ....body....get it? Not me

Let me break it down
See, our bodies are just cars that we operate and drive around
The dealership will call society decided to label mine the "black edition,"
Yours the "Irish" or "White edition"
And with no money down, 0% APR, and no test drive
We were forced to own these cars for the rest of our lives
Forgive me, but I fail to see the logic or pride
In defining myself or judging another by the cars we drive
Because who we truly are is found inside

Listen, I’m not here to tell you how science has concluded that genetically we’re all mixed
And race in the human species doesn't exist
Or how every historian knows that race was invented in the 15th century
To divide people from each other and it has worked perfectly...
No.... I'm not here to lecture
I just want to ask one question
Who would you be if the world never gave you a label?
Never gave you a box to check
Would you be White? Black? Mexican?
Asian? Native American? Middle Eastern? Indian?
No. We would be one; we would be together
No longer living in the error
Of calling human beings Black people or White people
These labels that will forever blind us from seeing a person for who they are
But instead seeing them through the judgmental, prejudicial, artificial filters of who we THINK they are

And when you let an artificial label define yourself
Then, my friend, you have chosen smallness over greatness and minimized your.... self
Confined and divided your .....self from others
And it is an undeniable fact that
When there is division, there will be conflict
And conflict starts wars
There-fore every war has started over labels
It's always us... versus them
So the answer to war, racism, sexism, and every other -ism
Is so simple that every politician has missed it
It’s the labels...
We must rip them off
Isn't it funny how no baby is born racist
Yet, every baby cries when they hear the cries of another
No matter the gender, culture or color
Proving that deep down, we were meant to connect and care for each other
That is our mission, and that it's not my opinion
That is the truth in a world that has sold us fiction
Please listen, labels only distort our vision
Which is why half of those watching this will dismiss it
Or feel resistance and conflicted
But, just remember...
So did the cater-pillar
Before it broke through its shell and became the magnificent butterfly
Well, these labels are our shells and we must do the same thing
So we can finally spread our wings
Human beings were not meant to be slapped with labels like groceries at supermarkets
DNA cannot be regulated by the FDA
We were meant to be free
And only until you remove them all
And stop living and thinking so small
Will we be free to see ourselves and each other for who we....TRULY.... are

Today Japan and South Korea have reached what the press calls a "historic agreement" regarding the issue of the Comfort Women (click to watch documentary).

Comfort Women... what an euphemism. Comfort Women were those women who were kidnapped throughout Asia to be held captive by the Japanese army and served as sex slaves to Japanese soldiers.

This happened for over a decade, women would live in military brothels for years, raped by soldier after soldier, day after day, night after night.

Today, one billion Yen have been donated to South Korea, but not as a compensation dictated by a court of law and given to the victims. That will most probably never happen.

For NEVER has Japan recognized their legal responsiblity of those atrocious acts. NEVER has ANY Japanese government nor military official been judged for the decisions and acts that set up a system that converted kidnapping and sexual slavery in a day-to-day reality.

And the war, for those 200 THOUSAND GIRLS AND WOMEN, will only be over with their deaths.

70 years on.

You don't know about the sex slaves of the Japanese army? You are not the only one. The existance and ordeals of those girls and women have been wiped off of history.

Let's never forget.

You are educating people in the idea that it is OK to kill and dissect a healthy young animal just for MONEY.

While in another part of the world, lion's number are dramatically declining.

PAY FOR HER RE-INTRODUCTION IN THE WILD.

That will be educational. But of course... it will only mean expenses and no income.

This is the link to the FB page of the Odense Zoo, in case somebody would like to leave a comment, or just copy-paste this post, since I'm sure my comment will disappear in a very short time.

We know that water is not at all uncommon throughout the universe. We also know, since the launching of the Kepler telescope, that there are millions of millions of millions of planets, only in our galaxy.

Now this. There is evidence of FLOWING water on Mars!!! A planet that we thought barren, only a few years ago.

Life as we define it -as to say, carbon-based, quite a narrow definition of life in my opinion- might not be as rare at the end of the day...

We truly live in a time of amazing discoveries...

This below is the link (copy and paste) to more information information on flowing water on Mars.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/28/nasa-scientists-find-evidence-flowing-water-mars

An in-depth reflection on the issue by the father of the GNU (free software/Linux), Richard Stallman. Long but worth it.

For those who don't have the time, here a brilliant comic from Bansky.

A movie named "Monsters" must contain monsters. But in its breathtaking final scene, we realize they should not be called Monsters but perhaps simply Beings.

Let a filmmaker dare to imagine a truly alien lifeform and it's "Monsters", a rather special achievement. It's based on characters, relationships, fear of letting go of what we have, of breaking lose, and although the movie's special effects are important, it's not about special effects.

The story, set some years in the future, explains that a probe was sent to Europa to search for life. On its return, it crash-landed in Mexico and whatever was on board found the conditions here suitable. The Beings have occupied a wide swath of northern Mexico, known as the Infected Zone, and travel through it is forbidden. A massive wall has been constructed to keep the creatures out of the United States, and Air Force planes fire missiles at them.

There's an obvious parallel with the current border situation between the two countries and the controversy over undocumented aliens. And another one with recent wars, where expensive and advanced warfare techniques are used to try to annihilate everything that is unknown. A process of demonization of what is unknown is going on, but are these beings actually a threat?

The journey takes us through wastelands of devastation but a brief comment, almost a throwaway line, suggests that the creatures grow agitated when attacked. Many a creature does. There isn't a single shot on camera of a Being actually assaulting anything without provocation.

We see evidence of the aliens. We hear their mournful sounds. We see them unclearly in night vision images on television news. Andrew and Samantha, the main characters, like many a movie couple before them gradually get close as they share the journey. But theirs is not a conventional romance. It's more about learning to see another person.

"Monsters" was written and directed by Gareth Edwards who also created all the special effects. He shot on location. All of the characters, except the leads, are played by locals. They're untrained, which means they're all the more convincing. Edwards had a minuscule budget, but let's say he knew how to spend it.

"Monsters" holds our attention ever more deeply than we realize. We expect that, sooner or later, we'll get a good look at the aliens close up. When we do, it's not a disappointment. They're ugly and uncannily beautiful, we've never seen anything like them, and their motives are made clear in a sequence combining uncommon suspense and uncanny poetry.

Edwards is brilliant at evoking the awe and beauty he has been building toward, and at last we fully realize the film's ambitious arc. I think the lesson may be: Monsters are in the eye of the beholder.

Sometimes an unknown "evil" might be better than a known "good". After you meet a "Monster", you might not want to go home...

I just read an article that looked behind the meat/dairy/egg industry, to the hardships that the people who work in it must endure. Very interesting details, though interpreted from the conventional point of view.

This is my reply to that article.

Most of these investigations, that supposedly "are counterproductive and accomplish nothing" are carried out by animal-right activist organizations, with an investment of PLENTY of time and effort. It is not easy to get into a farm/slaughterhouse and start shooting a video, it's not something that's done on a Sunday afternoon because we are bored. These animal-rights organizations are usually vegan. So the aim is not to close down one farm, the aim is that we realize that our nature is not to do certain things.

These investigations always result in violence and abuse, place they get in, violence and abuse they "discover", strange, right? Could it be that this is the RULE and not the exception? I tend to think so.

The reason is partly because of exactly what you say. To offer more and more produce, those businesses must keep their costs down, including the salary of their workers.

But there is more to that. Slaughterhouse workers turnout, for instance, is the highest professional turnout in the whole range of industries, beating turnout figures of field workers or similar "hard" professions. Why? Because we are NOT killers in nature (how many of us are sensitive to the sight of blood?). e might be pushed to killing if our life depends on it, but THIS is NOT in our nature.

As social workers need help with their psycho-emotional ordeals when they work with violence victims (of any kind), people who are constantly in the presence of violent death also have something that "breaks inside". Because we are NOT killers!!!

If killing is not in our nature, the consequence is that we are NOT hunters. There is a very simple way of finding out the nature of a unknown creature: observing its habits. If a new species is discovered, a member of this new species could be put in a room with a piece of fruit and a smaller animal, and if it is a carnivore it will eat the smaller animal and play with the piece of fruit. Put a child in a room and give him/her a bunny and a piece of banana, see what the child eats and what the child plays with. Do the same with a cat or a dog or a lion or a snake.

We are NOT carnivores, before supermarkets HOW MUCH meat did we eat (yes, we've always eaten meat, the question is how much)??? Surely much less than today. "Meat" is hard to come by, animals will run and kick and bite and thrush their horns when you try to kill them, fruit and vegetables don't, and they can be grown next to your home.

It is against our nature to witness violent death over and over and over again, day after day, hour after hour, how can this NOT change us inside? How can the meat/dairy/egg industry be humane, for humans and non-humans?

It simply cannot.

Laura

The first one, the experience of someone confronted with the indifference towards death that is so imbued in our society.

The second one because I needed to soak myself in hope, after reading the first.

Death, senseless death of living beings (be it humans or non-humans) is part of our routine. We see it in each movie, TV show, novel, comic. If this weren't enough, day-to-day death is served to us with lunch and dinner in the news.

It feels as if death has become such a trivial event for us, instead of being something that changes our lives completely (be it somebody else's death or our own).

Even young kids are exposed to the concept that deaths is unimportant, and if you don't believe me just watch "kid movies" as Kick Ass or leaf through any manga.

Today I had to remind myself that time and space are just a concept. Only by doing so could I send my love and my tears to that life that was taken so senselessly.

I love you baby shark.
I have shed tears for your suffering.
I remember you baby shark, you are now part of me.
I think of all living beings whose lives are ended in such an offhanded way, as if your lives were not important. Because they are to me.

And I thank both people who shared their experience with me, and were brave enough the first to confront the indifference of a society towards your death, the second to do something for changing that.

Even if it be will hard, I will send my love to those people who were with you on that beach, little shark... In a little while.

Laura

A recent summer weekend is smoldering in my memory. My favorite New York beach was checkered in rows of splayed out towels by the time I had caught the bus to the train and crossed the nebulous line where gravel turns to sand.  

I was digging the sunblock from underneath my nails after a heavy slathering session when the beach’s buzz level of crashing waves, music and chit chat rose in volume. The heightened voices were coming from the water’s edge, where over a dozen parents and children had gathered in a tightly packed circle, their hands jammed toward the sky, gripping cell phones and snapping photos. 

I continued picking my nails, assuming it was another piece of trash mistaken for an animal; a plastic straw confused for a crab leg or glass shard misidentified as a jellyfish.

The commotion continued, and curiosity got the best of me. I nonchalantly weaved between the blankets, just so happening to meander in the direction of the crowd. I leered over the hairy backs and damp towels flung around necks to see a man clutching a baby shark by its tail. He was grinning, delivering a thumbs up to his wife.

"Angle it a bit more in front- no babe, in front of you," his wife directed. "Yeah. No, you’re blocking it. In front of you."

The man jolted the shark by his tail, front and back, left and right. "Like this?"

"Yeah, that’s good." 

"Get a few."

The shark wiggled his torso and gaped his mouth open and shut.

A boy grabbed at the shark. "Let me hold it! I want a photo."

The man maintained a grip on the tail. The boy squirmed up next to the shark, smacked a hand on his side in a declaration of ownership, and extended his other hand gripping an iPhone to snap a selfie.  

"Shouldn’t you put the shark back in the water?" I asked. My voice was swallowed in the murmurs of excitement. I asked louder, "Shouldn’t you put it back?" 

Panic arose from the circle. "No, I didn’t get a photo with it yet!" "It’s my turn first!" A group of kids and adults alike began more desperately clambering for a grip of the shark. 

A big man with thick muscles and deeply tanned skin won the grab-off with two hands on the animal. "Joey! Hey Joey take my picture!" he shouted to a friend.

The shark’s torso stopped wiggling, and he slowly gaped his mouth once, and then let it hang open. "You guys! I think the shark is dying," I exclaimed.

A few heads turned my way, then returned back to taking photos. My cheeks began to burn as I stood in front of the man, my hands waving, blocking the cameras. "This shark is dying. You guys are literally killing this shark for a photo, can’t you see that?" I asked. A sea of cameras, iPhones and iPads stared back at me. The crowd waited for me to move so they could resume their important work of proving they saw a shark. Dead or alive, it didn’t matter. It’d be liked on Facebook and Instagram either way. 

I clamped my shaky hand on the thick muscled man’s greasy shoulder. "Let it go," I declared in a voice higher than I knew I was capable of. He turned to his friend. "You get the pic, Joey?" and upon Joey’s nod, he shrugged. "Fine." 

"No, wait!" Another man yelled, grabbing at the shark. "I didn’t get a turn!"

"You are literally going to kill this shark for a photo!" I argued. 

He looked down at the shark dangling from his hand. "It’s already dead," he shrugged.

The shark’s mouth lay agape, his gills slightly blowing in the sea breeze.

"Just…" I bit down hard on my tongue to force back tears worming their way out. "...Just put him back in the water. Please."  

The man shrugged and dropped him in the sea. Another man waded into the water to find him, but the shark had floated out with the current.

A little girl in a polka dot bathing suit with ruffles stomped up to me, splashing her little feet through the water. She smacked her hands onto her hips. "What’d you do that for?! I don’t want any shark stinking up my ocean."

I stared at her, and shook my head. "That’s nature."

She blinked at me, confused by this notion, and stomped away.

This is a generation that experiences animals, nature and the great wonders of our world behind the safety of four-inch screens instead of understanding how to live among them in reality. We are teetering dangerously close to preferring satisfaction in the virtual world over the real one.

Humans no longer know how to interact with the natural world. That summer day, this disconnect came at the sacrifice of a little baby shark. I fear the consequences will be more dire in the future.

As we anchored the boat just outside the entrance to the mangrove channel there was a lot of giggling and excitement. Fueled up with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches (official field work lunch) and chocolate cupcakes, the students were ready for adventure. Duncan and I, along with Jill, Michael and CJ from the Sharklab, were embarking on our epic day in the mangroves. 

We warned the students and teachers about the bottom being a little squishy and to be mindful of sea urchins. We lead the charge and checked for critters as we made our way to the entrance. The four female students jumped off the boat, squealed a bit as their toes squished and sunk, but they giggled and charged on. The boys however, were a bit more reluctant. Everyone was en route and they were still on the boat. Finally, after a bit of heckling from their female classmates, the boys made the leap and followed us. They politely insisted, “ ladies first.” Nice to see such young gentlemen- ha!

As we neared the entrance we warned everyone about the center part getting pretty deep. This beautiful tunnel to paradise is about three feet wide and the mangrove branches wrap around it from top to bottom. This adds to the sense of adventure as you swim through like explorers charting a new path. As the water got deeper the giggles returned, but all made it through unscathed.

The tunnel pours into an opening in the mangroves that is truly paradise. This is by far, one of my favorite places in the world. It is wild, untouched and feels as thought you are on a different planet. The only reminder of civilization is the occasional plane passing overhead. It is here where we were going to share with the students and teachers, a beautiful moment with wild baby lemon sharks.

Sharklab manager Jill had made her way up to the spot and put some chum in the water. The baby lemon sharks head up the channel on the high tide to look for food and take shelter. The channel is a dead end, so we hoped that a few sharkies had ventured in and would come looking for a snack. Before too long, the tell tale wake on the surface indicated a shark heading our way. The kids immediately started imitating the, “Jaws” impending doom music. We all had a good laugh. The little sharks are always cautious, as you would be with a bunch of potential predators loitering about. Slowly, but surely they came to check us out. The first shark that approached had a green tag, showing it was one of the sharks currently involved in a Sharklab research project. 

Finally the shark with the green tag came in for a snack. Word spread quickly and pretty soon we had five sharks cruising around. The excitement level rose as students anxiously waited for their turn to feed a shark. Fear and misunderstanding were replaced with laughter and a little competition to see who could feed the most. As their comfort level increased, the teachers decided to get in on the action. They each nudged their way to the front and shared a moment with the baby sharks. It is an amazing thing to witness people and sharks sharing a simple, but powerful encounter with the capacity to change a person’s entire perception. I watched, in awe, at the beauty of the moment. This is hope for our sharks and hope for our oceans. These little sharks are ambassadors for sharks all over Bimini and the world.

It was hard to say goodbye, but the tide changed and it was our time to go. Every student and teacher had a grin from ear to ear as we swam, stumbled and waded back to the boat. Everyone was glowing from such a unique experience, one most said they never expected to ever have, especially right in their own backyard. I can only hope that these students and their teachers will carry this experience with them and speak on behalf of sharks and how amazing they are.

A mission to land the first space probe on a comet has reached a major milestone today, when the unmanned Rosetta spacecraft finally caught up with its quarry.

After a journey of 6.4 billion kilometers, Europe's unmanned Rosetta probe reached its destination today, a milestone in mankind's first attempt to land a spacecraft on a comet.

It's a hotly anticipated rendezvous: Rosetta flew into space more than a decade ago and had to perform a series of complex maneuvers to gain enough speed to chase down comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko on its orbit around the sun.

A range of features, including boulders, craters and steep cliffs are shown in the images, that were taken from a distance between 285 and 130 km.

This is humanity's only chance to have a rendezvous with a comet. A tiny block of ice and stone travelling through the immensity of space at unimaginable speed.

How amazing is that?