Reciprocity – Like Water to Fish, Part Five

Bob Fiske

Reciprocity – Like Water to Fish, Part Five

CLICK HERE to go to Part Four

Erasing the debt.  Our relationship to the earth has been one of taking and not of giving.  We—all of humanity—have accrued a huge debt.  We have not made a sincere, planet-wide effort to begin making payments to repay the loan.  The big question that will get in our way is this: Who’s going to start?  Which person?  Which neighborhood?  Which city?  Which state?  Which country?

This is not an idle question; it’s a central one.  Just witness the difficulty we are having with climate change related to global warming.  The collective efforts to reign in human production of greenhouse gases (so-called atmospheric carbon and carbon equivalents) continue to stall.  The talks are marked by in-fighting and failure to come to consensus.

What most people fail to recognize is that global warming is just one of several “overshoot problems” looming on, or just over the horizon.  If we’re having this much trouble with the global warming problem—for which replacement technologies already exist—then how are we going to deal with other pollution excesses and resource shortages, not to mention destabilization of the greater biosphere beyond the pale of human concern?

The new human nature.  My answer is a shift in values.  Change ourselves.  If we can flip our taking behavior over to giving behavior, then the question of “Who will start?” may evaporate.

For many, this new direction may be an almost insurmountable challenge.  In the book of Genesis, God instructs Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, and to take dominion over the earth.  In some religious traditions, these statements are regarded as God’s first commandments to humanity.  I view these statements as somewhat more than mere commandments.  They are concise, brilliant expressions of human nature.

Looking at the broad scope of human history, is it not obvious that our natural inclinations have lead us down the path of “mastery over the earth”?  Our successes in this regard are a logical outgrowth of our basic nature.  Or is it?  What is missing from this description of human nature?

What if we were to recognize that human mastery of the earth—the cause, one might say, of our unquestioned taking from the earth—is only one half of our nature.  In that case, it might not seem quite so impossible to change our nature. 

Changing our nature might appear to be a process of forcefully suppressing our “base desires”.  That is an unpalatable notion.  But the problem can be turned around.  Perhaps there are parts of our nature that are already being suppressed, making it seem as though we are nothing more than taking creatures.

I maintain that fully human beings are more than taking creatures.  Animals are taking creatures.  They respond to motivational forces and show no capability to restrain those motivations.  Only human beings can consciously exercise restraint.  It’s true that many times we don’t want to do that—unless we are provided with a compelling reason.  Nonetheless, it is a capacity we have that is unique in the kingdom of living beings.

What else can fully human beings do?  We can think about and judge our own actions.  We can look back upon something we have done and conclude that that action is not desirable or socially acceptable.  Again, we often do not wish to do this because of emotional barriers such as shame or guilt making us want to hide our actions from others or ourselves.  But if we have sufficient reason, we can override these barriers.

I have given just two ways that mark fully human beings as more than taking creatures: self-restraint and integrity.  Furthermore, if we consciously take ownership of these traits (and other fully human traits), it will become easier to reign in the part of us that exists only to take.  Our full human nature can “naturally” lead us away from fruitful multiplication and dominion over the earth.  Our full human nature can lead us to own that part of our humanity that is rooted in integrity and responsibility for our actions.

And so, I have a proposal to begin our reprogramming of ourselves into giving beings.  This is coming in the next section of this essay.

Another Path to Self-Worth: Nobility.  I have argued so far that our economic system has embedded within most of us a “deep value” that guides many of our choices.  This value is reciprocity, which can be understood as the drive to engage in fair exchanges.  We are so well conditioned in this way of thinking that many of us determine our sense of self-esteem or self-worth based on how effective we are at conducting fair exchanges.  For most adults this occurs firstly through the activity of earning a living.

To illustrate this I will ask you to imagine a person that has developed a severe illness that will require an extended period of recuperation.  Consequently, the person will have to stop working.  If the person is fortunate, he or she may have some kind of worker’s compensation that keeps some income flowing into the bank account.  Nevertheless, this person feels uncomfortable about not working and impatiently waits for the doctor to release him or her to return to work.  Have you ever met a person like this?  Maybe it was even yourself.

When people are denied the opportunity to work they often feel inadequate and may even sink into a state of depression.  I would suggest that this makes perfect sense if generating income for the purpose of engaging in reciprocal exchanges (buying stuff) is the primary means that people have been taught for arriving at a sense of self-worth.  Consequently, people will become highly invested in maintaining a system where self-worth is organized around reciprocity, or fair exchanges.

However, this is a distorted picture of human psychology, as well as of the entire system governing the well-being of the world.

Martin Seligman, who wrote a book entitled Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment talks about a fellow psychologist who built a career on a phrase he learned from his mother when he was a boy.  If the mother found her son moping around, she would say, “If you’re in a bad mood, go find somebody to help.”  This idea brilliantly reminds us that self-worth is not only about exchanges.

Yet our economic system seems to have forgotten this.  It is no wonder, then, that the field of economics has lead us down a path toward ever-increasing imbalance.  It is no wonder that citizens of developed countries, and the United States in particular, are having trouble reclaiming a sense of self-worth.

Summary of Part Five.  In our relationship to the earth, it is time to start repaying the debt.  Who will take the lead?  Suppressing our desire to take might appear to be an insurmountable challenge.  Maybe the answer is to un-suppress other aspects of our nature.  The fully human being is endowed with capabilities such as self-restraint and judgment of actions as good or bad.  There may be other suppressed capabilities of the fully human being.  Expanding these capabilities will help temper our taking nature.  Additionally, our economic system is tied in with the methods we use to achieve a sense of self-worth.  If self-worth is primarily achieved through earning an income and buying goods and services, then this, too, will impair our ability modify our taking nature.

CLICK HERE to go to Part Six.

Nature’s Brains, Part 6

July 8, 2012

Bob Fiske

Nature’s Brains, Part 6

(Note: I invite you to read Part 5 before you dive into this part.)

It’s time to wrap this up.  Have I convinced you that brains are obsolete?  Probably not.  That’s OK, because I am not perfectly convinced, either.  However, I do suspect that they may be.

Let’s reexamine the idea of species survival.  Many people—including some biologists—equate survival with competition.  In layperson’s lingo survival amounts to “survival of the fittest”.  Even those trained in genetics might say that a unique gene (or complex of genes) confers a “survival advantage”, meaning that individuals endowed with this advantage will be more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation than individuals lacking the genetic trait(s).

What this amounts to is that more competitive individuals or species, because of “superior adaptability” will out-reproduce other individuals/species in the race to acquire resources, meet physical needs and produce offspring that also produce offspring.  Understood this way, human beings would be judged as the most competitive species, and largely due to the human brain.

If I stopped there, then you would miss the other crucial half of the picture.  The “competitive half-picture” conveys the image of nature as a producer of Olympic gold medalists that can beat out other contenders.  However, that is a simple human notion.  Nature has been in this business too long to aim so low.

The truth is, I believe, that nature’s brilliance can be summed up in a simple word: harmony.

While it is true that the natural world does create species rivalries, it is of much greater significance that species coexist.  It’s not hard to see.  Walking in the neighborhood in the summer I notice that every bush is laced with spider webs.  The plants don’t simply tolerate these invaders, they make them a comfortable home.

Go into any forest.  You are standing within a well-balanced system in which plants, animals, insects, worms and fungi each contribute in species-unique ways to the overall health of the biome.  By the way, one reference uses another interesting word: communities.  Biomes are notable as communities hosting a diversity of species.

Even in extremes of inter-species competition, nature manages to maintain harmony.  For example, swarms of locusts (immense concentrations of juvenile grasshoppers) can consume plant life rapidly in areas of thousands of square kilometers.  In their wake locust swarms leave no living thing.  This appears to be extreme competition, but it is more than that.  Grasshopper populations die off, and plant communities grow anew.  Nature restores balance by means of a time-based cycle.

The human brain appears to play by its own rules.  As a competitor it is unsurpassed.  The problem is that, in achieving its competitive advantage, the human brain has brushed aside nature’s tendencies to create coexistence.  Competition may be hard, and Homo sapiens may be the winner.  But one thing is certain: winning is easy when measured against nature’s ability to weave communities that maintain harmony among species.

Some people do understand this.  Farmers specializing in permaculture strive to create interactive plant, animal and insect communities that produce food, retain water, create shade and sun, grow flowers and constrain pests.  Their goal is to grow food in the manner that nature grows forests, with multiple species coexisting.  The knowledge of how to emulate nature exists.  It is not mainstream knowledge, but it exists.

That knowledge is not enough.  The human brain has painted itself into a corner because we are well on our way to nine billion individuals.  Most species have constraints that keep their populations in check.  Prey have predators, and predators have a limited supply of prey.  They are subject to limitations in territory or key resources.  The human brain, though, has invented methods to defeat every limitation that governs unbridled growth in other species.  Our population goes in one direction only: up.

In the end, I suspect that nature’s way will ultimately triumph.  The human brain is on course to exhaust every last resource it can.  In doing so, it will end the supremacy of the human species.  It will also take down many, many species by disrupting the finely tuned harmony that nature has woven.  Because of the human brain’s competitive and simplistic behavior, the world will undergo yet another massive extinction event.

Like the crops that were devastated by locusts, nature will re-emerge.  It will continue its process of creating species that both compete and coexist in balanced communities.  And it will never again produce a species with an over-competitive, non-harmonizing brain like the one encased in the skulls of Homo sapiens.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE FIRST PART

Nature’s Brains, Part 5

July 8, 2012

Bob Fiske

Nature’s Brains, Part 5

(Note: I invite you to read Part 4 before you dive into this part.)

If you have followed this essay so far, you might have thought I was doing a term paper for a biology class.  You could be excused, for you did not know the question that motivated it.  But it’s not a term paper, it’s an editorial.  You might say this is a bio-political opinion piece.

Now here is where I’m going to look pretty dumb.  An editorial author is supposed to have a single, solid opinion.  I don’t.  I haven’t made up my mind yet.  It’s because of the question I asked.

A question popped into my mind as I “observed” the inner workings of the feeding sparrow’s marvelous little brain, as I recognized that brains are useful and that nature has kept improving their designs, that, in the human brain we see both the splendor and drawbacks of advanced brain design, and that, from nature’s point of view, the drawbacks are a supremely serious problem.

And this question entered my mind.  “Are brains obsolete?”  Is nature done experimenting with brains?  That’s the question.

Here, in a nutshell, is my ambivalence on the issue.  The human brain has supplanted nature.  Or: the human brain appears to think and act like it has replaced nature.  Or: perhaps the human brain will, in fact, displace nature in determining the future of all life on the planet.  Or: probably not, nature will win and will phase out brains.

One might reply, “Phase out brains?  It could never happen!”  Want to bet?  We have evidence of other design solutions that were edited out of nature’s animal catalogue.  For instance, the dinosaurs.  Although dinosaur fossils have been found spanning a variety of sizes, for this discussion we want to focus on the most obvious group, the giants whose body masses were on the order of several metric tons.  They are no more.  That design was phased out.

Dinosaurs had a nice, long reign of over an eighth of a billion years.  Another grand animal design is represented by the trilobite group that inhabited earth’s early oceans for over a quarter of a billion years.  They, too, are no more.  So, it is possible that successful animal designs can enjoy popularity and still end up as throwaways in the genetic scrap heap.

OK, let’s back up a step.  Is nature a thing that is capable of making decisions?  Can nature phase out brains?  I want to be clear: talking about nature as if it is an entity that deliberately chooses which species to include or omit in a catalogue is merely a verbal shorthand.  While that shorthand makes it possible to express sentences using fewer words, I would not want you to become confused by it.

Therefore, to clear up any misunderstanding, I will place a small definition on the table.  Nature is a system of rules for structuring matter.  It turns out that this rule-base is huge, as is the number and type of forms it is capable of producing.  Nature does not think, nor does it plan.  And yet, as psychiatrist Allen Wheelis poetically argued, nature appears to “progress”.  Using verbal shorthand once again, I would say that it is possible to see in nature’s progress innumerable experiments in which forms have been tried out.

Certainly, in the arena of life, the “trying out” of forms (living designs, genotype/phenotype combinations) has a dynamic nature.  By dynamic, I mean that experiments can be performed using biological building blocks, and when the experiment is over those bio-molecules can be recycled into other organisms.  It’s like having a whiteboard or a computer hard drive that can be written and rewritten upon many, many times.

So, simply because the human brain is the most adept brain to be written onto nature’s slate is no guarantee of anything.  That genetic information can be wiped clean, and the raw materials can be assembled to make other designs.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO PART 6

Nature’s Brains, Part 4

July 8, 2012

Bob Fiske

Nature’s Brains, Part 4

(Note: I invite you to read Part 3 before you dive into this part.)

Sooner or later, in nature’s tinkering with brain designs, a truly superior model was bound to come along.  The simian family lays claim to this prize.  Scientists don’t really understand how this happened, yet we see many descendent species alive today that clearly show the innovative features that formed over time.

One of these innovations was exquisitely fine motor control.  This capability appears to have co-evolved with body characteristics that could express new types of movement.  For instance, all monkeys and apes possess a finger-based hand that shapes itself with greater precision than is given to clawed or hooved mammals.  Also, some of these species are endowed with long limbs and tails that give them the arboreal advantage to swing, climb and hang.  Of course, living in trees also requires balance, eyesight and hearing to match the motor skills.  These are jobs handled by the new brain, and they couple well with this brain’s superior learning ability.

Courtesy of e-mail, I once watched a film of a gibbon teasing a pair of tiger cubs.  (You may watch it here, though be warned that the film quality is low.)  If ever I saw a gymnastic wizard, this little gibbon was it.  It is a remarkable testimony of the superior level of body-and-brain coordination possible using a simian brain.

Other capabilities emerged in the simian brain.  A brain that can learn is a brain that can teach.  Thus, it is possible to pass brain-encoded patterns from generation to generation without relying only on the DNA hard-wiring of behavior.  By the way, the teaching of new generations is not a monopoly owned just by simian brains.  Bears teach their cubs how to forage, and many types of young male birds must learn their songs from older males of the same species and geographic location.  Nonetheless—as we well know—the simian brain would push the ability to learn and teach to new heights.

The most recent brain innovations are sported by the hominids, or great apes.  Some of our less intellectual cousins, chimpanzees and gorillas, show that they, too, carry the seeds of the type of intelligence that flourished in the Homo (human) line.  Chimps have been observed to make simple tools such as using sticks to fish out ants from a nest for eating.  These species show other “human” traits such as problem-solving, concern for the welfare of others, and self-awareness.

And, surprisingly, both chimpanzees and gorillas have revealed that they possess previously unsuspected symbolic language skills.  Given the right expressive media (American Sign Language, computer screens or colored shapes), hominids in research settings have amassed sizeable vocabularies and have shown that they can fashion novel “utterances” to express, wants, needs and general observations.

Finally in this discussion of the “advanced design” hominid brain, I wish to mention a series of brain structures that are loosely bundled under the term “the limbic system”.  The limbic structures lie at the base of the cortex, at the juncture where it surrounds the “old brain”.  In fact, these structures (the hippocampus, the amygdala, the nucleus accumbens, and others) appear in other mammalian brains of less intellectual stature than the hominid brain.  In spite of this fact, it is probable that, in hominid brain design, limbic structures were enhance and pressed into service to perform more complex functions.  Limbic functions are thought to play a role in reward, fear, addiction, emotional memories and memory formation in general.  Perhaps that’s too much anatomy.

The idea I want to paint about the new-and-improved hominid brain might be better conveyed using broader brush strokes.  This brain permitted a new level of behavioral and thought patterns, patterns that were the product of emotions, punishments, rewards and social transactions.  In ape communities we see such things as exchanging grooming services, currying favor and shifting dominance hierarchies.  However, in human communities an entirely new social reality was called into existence.  Its final metamorphosis would be expressed in human culture.  In this culture the social, emotional, symbolic, political, artistic, economic and intellectual components could take on reality as  by-products of a marvelously large brain.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO PART 5
CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE LAST PART

Nature's Brains, Part 3

July 8, 2012

Bob Fiske

Nature’s Brains, Part 3

(Note: I invite you to read Part 2 before you dive into this part.)

As nature continued to tinker with brain designs, sooner or later some sophisticated features were bound to arise.  In larger, brained animals, such as dinosaurs, the reptilian or “old brain” did little more than regulate basic bodily processes.  These brains sent “down” nerve impulses for modifying respiration, digestion, heart rate, and perhaps even body temperature.  The old brain could also chain together primitive movements known as reflexes.  Reflexes are simple and are coded in the spinal cord.  Through the dominance of the brain these simple movements could be orchestrated into more complex behavioral sequences, sort of like composing words from the letters of the alphabet.

The complex behavioral sequences could accomplish tasks such as hunting, mating, building a nest, walking, running, fighting, and so on.  How did the old brain come to encode the complex behaviors?  Through trial-and-error.  In other words, species went extinct or found a survival advantage based upon the behavior sets that were genetically hard-wired into their members’ brains.  These behaviors were determined by the DNA code in that species’ genes and were passed from generation to generation.  Learning of the sort that we take for granted had not yet been invented as a brain design feature.

Even today we are able to see in the “advanced” mammalian brain vestiges of hard-wired, genetically coded behavior.  One example of this is the newborn foal.  Within minutes of being born, baby horses struggle to their feet and begin to walk.  Seeing a fully developed behavior of this sort is fairly unusual in the mammalian brain because the innovations it has acquired generally impose a long development period on the young brain.

One of the premier innovations that enabled mammals to survive was the brain’s ability to learn.  This is anything but trivial (even though we take it for granted).  In order to learn, the brain needed to have a memory that could be loaded with new patterns.  But, for that to happen, the brain required an exquisitely complex coding mechanism that could replicate, in a “neural form”, qualities of the real world, a virtual model, so to speak.  This required more and more neurons in the brain.  The result is the “new” brain, a larger accessory that physically sits above and around the old brain.  All this new neural tissue was crammed into a larger skull in a folded and wrinkled fashion.  Scientists call this the cortex.

Parts of the cortex could more richly record auditory information or visual information.  Also, parts of the cortex were dedicated to producing complex movement sequences in various muscle groups such as the limbs, the mouth, the tail, the vocal chords, etc.

By the way, mammalian brains exerted pressure on other species to keep up.  So, we see that many birds (the descendants of the dinosaurs) also innovated their brain designs in similar fashion.  Maybe we mammals are not so special, after all, just lucky to come out in front of the race for survival.

Of course all this ability to encode a rich a faithful inner world model or command exquisitely complex movements would be better utilized if the brain were endowed with an equally rich storage system, that is, a memory.  The memory would allow multiple experiences in an individual’s life to be compared.  This is essential to learning (and survival), for it enables the search for cause-and-effect relationships to be found.

Here’s a simple example.  I am travelling with a herd of my companion mammals over an area of dry, parched earth.  Yet my eyes and visual cortex are able to discern a distant spot of green and brown as a concentration of things known as plants.  The brain, commanding the eyes to look more closely, enables the visual cortex to spy that this is a rich and dense collection of vegetation.  And the brain’s memory yields up a “conclusion” that other dense collections of vegetation have proved to be a source for water.  Even without the benefit of language that can name things, my mammalian brain has recorded (learned) the causal meaning of an oasis.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO PART 4
CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE LAST PART

Nature’s Brains, Part 2

July 8, 2012

Bob Fiske

Nature’s Brains, Part 2

(Note: I invite you to read Part 1 before you dive into this part.)

Nature is the Great Inventor.  Through its innovative experiments we have an awe-inspiring array of species.  Considering only the animal kingdom, there exists such a marvelous set of unexpected forms.  Some, in fact, are altogether strange.  Nature makes even the most creative Hollywood creature-maker look like an imbecile.

Among nature’s animals on this planet (both living and extinct), there is a notable subclass, namely, those creatures possessing a brain.  Now, at the extreme, where we find insects, spiders, bugs, worm and snails, we might want to argue about what is the minimum level of neural tissue that actually qualifies as a brain.  But that is not the motivating question behind this essay.  So we will keep our focus on animals whose possession of a brain is undeniable.

Over the eons nature rolled many dice, so to speak, and out popped numerous experimental forms.  Many of these species couldn’t cut it.  Either these species failed to compete or to harmonize with other species in their neighborhoods and petered out.  More likely it was not an either-or.  These extinguished germ lines most likely failed to compete and to harmonize with other species.  More about that, later.

However, somewhere in the succession of new forms, one innovation appeared that had lasting value: a brain.  In order to continue this discussion, we must relieve ourselves of the conviction that human brains are the only ones worth considering.  Or even that only mammalian brains merit discussion.  Certainly there are many scientists—biologists, ethologists, geneticists, neurologists and bio-psychologists—for whom this widening of the field is a no-brainer.  (I just made a funny.  Huh.)

But to include the rest of us in on the discussion, let’s start by noticing that once nature chanced upon the brain as an animal trait, it was simply too valuable to relinquish.  Animals with brains prospered, and the number of such species multiplied.  Brains can be used in creatures that graze, hunt, swim, fly and burrow.

There is a little more to the story, though.  Brains come at a cost.  They must be encased for protection.  They put demands on their owners for large amounts of oxygen, chemical energy (glucose), and other nutrients.  As an organ, brains take longer to develop than other organs.  Some animal experiments probably abandoned the concept (“It’s a luxury, not a requirement”) and chose a different reproductive strategy, such as laying a million eggs.  But, seeing how many brains inhabit the directory of animals, I think we’re safe in concluding that brains established themselves in the genetic menu because of their lasting value.  (Kind of like pizza and ice cream.  I’m only kidding.)

Well, then, what exactly is a brain, one might ask?  In questions of this sort, I usually start with the simplest definition I can imagine.  A brain is a storage medium that can encode (store) a repertoire of behaviors and can allow the animal to apply them in the appropriate situations.  With a brain, an animal can either store more types of behaviors and/or more complex behaviors.

As an aside, one of my favorite examples is the web-building spider.  The spider web is a marvel of engineering.  The spider can build one wherever it finds itself, using whatever objects happen to be present.  If you look at many garden spiders in the city, you will find that they opportunistically choose a spot for a web because there is a nearby light that will attract flying insects.  Even a streetlight three houses away will do.  They don’t stop and check to see if there are precisely six branches and an overhang.  They go ahead and use the available props.  This is the height of creativity!

In spiders I see a tiny brain used to store one fairly complex behavior (web-building) and an assortment of quite simple ones (such as running for cover if a shadow moves over quickly).

So, just like the cellular telephone, brains found a stable niche because they proved to be a useful “natural technology” that was too valuable to give up.  As a result, there ensued a lengthy series of design experiments to show what could be made from this basic concept.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO PART 3

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE LAST PART

Nature’s Brains, Part 1

July 8, 2012

Bob Fiske

Nature’s Brains, Part 1

 "But the old crow comforted me, saying, 'If you only had brains in your head you would be as good a man as any of them, and a better man than some of them.  Brains are the only things worth having in this world, no matter whether one is a crow or a man.'  After the crows had gone I thought this over and decided I would try hard to get some brains."
     -- The Scarecrow in: L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, 1900

I have a little story to tell.  I went on a walk in the neighborhood I grew up in on a sunny morning in July, 2012.  This is a section of Los Angeles that is a little hilly.  Most of the houses have foundations that are above street level.  All of the streets curve both up and down and to the side.

I came around a curve and caught sight of a clear plastic bird feeder mounted on the outside of one house’s large living room window.  It was shaped like a little house with an opening in front and a sunken floor for holding the bird seed.  Its unusual position—in the middle of a large plate glass window—was what probably attracted my attention initially, but it took only a fraction of a second to notice the little, brown sparrow inside of it.  Standing sideways to my vantage point it leaned forward and down to peck at the supply of seeds.

I stopped, and so did the sparrow.  I did not want to disturb the bird, I wanted to watch it eat.  But the sparrow stood (sideways to my view) and waited.  It waited for me to walk by and away.  I did not.

This little bird stopped its eating because a large animal—a human being—came into view.  The large animal was close enough to pose a potential threat, and so the bird shifted to defensive behavior.

"Close enough".  That is noteworthy.  The house sat on a rise behind a retaining wall.  I was perhaps 15 feet from the front of the house.  Moreover, the base of the house was at least five feet above my eye level.  And the plastic bird feeder in the middle of the window was an additional eight feet above that.  So that little bird sat on a perch 18 feet above the ground on which I stood and 15 feet away.  Or (thanks to the Pythagorean theorem) there were a good 23 feet between my perch and the bird’s.

And, yet, that sparrow registered me as a threat.

Of greater interest to me was how the bird reacted to this threat.  It watched me.  Remember, a sparrow’s eyes are on the sides of its head.  This is generally true for prey animals.  So, standing sideways, it had a direct view of me.  It made tiny little movements up, down and side-to-side with its head.  This is an understandable response to threat.  Not only was it watching me, but it was scanning the environment, the better to assess if there might be other threats.  The better to assess possible escape routes.

I imagine that this sequence of behaviors—feed, detect, assess, and prepare for lifesaving flight—is a normal affair for a foraging, prey animal such as a sparrow.  Its brain is wired with strategies for preserving its existence.  More about that later.  Yet, I wanted to see if I could maintain a non-threatening status long enough that the bird would relax its threat response and return to eating.  So, I stopped.  I stood still.

I stood motionless, and the sparrow scanned with its little head movements.  I am a patient person.  I waited.  After nearly a minute the bird made a little forward-bobbing movement with its beak.  Just a little movement.  It wanted to return to eating.  But the parts of its brain responsible for the defensive scanning and preparation for flight overrode that impulse.

These impulses, feed, detect, assess and prepare for flight, seem to have independent existences in the brain.  Like a committee formed of department managers, they must come together and negotiate.  Who is going to dominate?  Who will take control of the bird’s behavior?  That all depends on the current conditions, of course.  If a potential threat appears, then the defensive managers win the negotiation.  If the threat fails to materialize, then the feeding manager garners more power in the negotiation.

I could see these internal negotiations taking place—from something as insignificant as a tiny forward-bobbing motion of the head.  I knew that I could affect the outcome of the negotiation simply by continuing to wait without moving.

Another 15 or 20 seconds.  Did I see another forward head movement?  Perhaps.  Now it was well over a minute since our encounter had begun.  There, definitely.  A forward head movement, followed by more scanning.  Another quarter of a minute.  A forward movement, this time more pronounced.  Not the actual eating of the bird seed on the feeder’s floor, but a clear indication that the impulse to feed had not been completely suppressed.

And so it went.  I believe that it was coming up on two minutes.  Finally I saw a deep bowing of the head.  The bird’s beak appeared to make contact with the seed.  Nervously the sparrow resumed its eye-scanning.  Then it tapped its beak back to the bird seed.  After a short pause it did that again.  And again.

I was rewarded by my frozen stance.  As I expected, I could outwait the nervous behavior produced by the little sparrow’s marvelous little brain.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO PART 2

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE LAST PART

Ignorant Food 1

Molly, who is the grandmother of Sarif and Rahul, once told this story to Nils.  Molly and Nils are like-minded in certain respects.  It is logical, then, that the story—a memory that Molly found quite moving—affected Nils in a similar fashion.

César Chávez was the legendary champion for the civil rights of migrant farm workers.  He co-founded the United Farm Workers union.  One source describes him as “a self-taught rhetorical genius”.  And so it was that Molly drove forty miles to hear Chávez speak.

Many things were spoken that day.  Of them all, a single thought lodged firmly in Molly’s mind.  You are about to receive this idea.  It is simple.  It has survived the eighty mile journey, the interval of two decades that passed until Nils heard it from Molly, and another ten years until Nils thought to share it here.  It still has the power to raise goose bumps on his neck.

“The ‘farmer’ comes to your table three times each day.”

There is more to this story.  Naturally, Nils shared this idea with Delores.  Her first reaction was, “I eat the labor of people.”  The idea cooked itself in her brain, and then food ignorance took another turn.  To be continued.