Sunday, January 30, 2011

Simpsons

Homer: “As much as I’d like to stay and discuss this issue, I’m holding a glass of milk and it may go bad.” (from memory)

Moe: Hot damn! All right, don’t eat nothing for the next three days ‘cause I’m takin’ you out for a steak the size of a toilet seat.

It’s been four years since my last date with a watchoo-call-it, uh, woman.

Well, if you’re so sure about what it ain’t , how about telling us what it am!

Mr Burns: What good is money if you can’t inspire terror in your fellow man?

Why, my good man, you’re the fattest thing I’ve ever seen, and I’ve been on safari.

Chief Wiggum: You know you’re not supposed to go in there. What is your fascination with my ‘Forbidden closet of mystery’?

You know, fingerprints are just like snowflakes. They’re both very pretty.

Yeah, everyone’s heard of angels, but who’s heard of a ‘Neanderthal’?

Heat

Pacino - I've got three dead bodies on a sidewalk of Venice boulevard, Justine, I'm sorry if the goddamn...chicken...got overcooked.

It's like you said. All I am is what I'm going after.

De Niro - [To Vincent] I do what I do best, I take scores. You do what you do best, try to stop guys like me.

Quotes from ‘Happiness and economics’ - Economics discovers its feelings Dec 19th 2006

Happiness, as measured by national surveys, has hardly changed over 50 years. The rich are generally happier than the poor, but rich countries do not get happier as they get richer. The Japanese are much better off now than in 1950, but the proportion who say they are “very happy” has not budged. Americans too have remained much as Alexis de Tocqueville found them in the 19th century: “So many lucky men, restless in the midst of abundance.”

Lord Layard and Mr Frank both blame habit and rivalry for this stagnation of morale. People grow accustomed to what they have—however much of it there is. Moreover, having a lot of things is not enough if other people have more. A rising tide lifts all boats, but not all spirits.

To clamber up the pecking order, some people slave away nights and weekends at the office. They gain in rank at the expense of their free time. But in making that sacrifice they also hurt anyone else who shares their aspirations: they too must give up their weekends to keep up. Mr Frank reckons that many people would like to work less, if only others slackened off also. But such bargains cannot be struck unilaterally. On the contrary, people compete in costly “arms races”, knowing that if they do not work harder, they will lose their standing to someone who does.

These races are motivated by more than just prestige. As Fred Hirsch argued in his 1977 book, “The Social Limits to Growth”, many good things in life are “positional”. You can enjoy them only if others don't. Sometimes, a quick car, fine suit or attractive house is not enough. One must have the fastest car, finest suit or priciest house.

For many people, work is—as traditional economics assumes—just a way to pay the rent. But Carlyle is not the only one to see it as much more than that. In a string of experiments, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, of Claremont Graduate University, has handed out pagers to thousands of people who agreed to log their mood whenever prompted to do so. People were, unsurprisingly, at their happiest when eating, carousing or pottering around the garden. But some fortunate people also found deep satisfaction from losing themselves in their work: “forgetting themselves in a function”, as W.H. Auden put it.

It is easier to forget yourself in some functions than in others, of course. In Auden's poem, surgeons manage it “making a primary incision”, as do cooks, mixing their sauce, and clerks “completing a bill of lading”. This happy state, which Mr Csikszentmihalyi calls “flow”, arises most often in work that stretches a person without defeating him; work that provides “clear goals”,

Adventures of a Red Sea Smuggler, by Henry De Monfreid

There was no use worrying about the possible difficulties to come, they always loom very large and terrible in the distance, but when one arrives at the foot of a wall there is always some foothold that enables one to climb it.

Twelve Monkies

JEFFREY

You know what "crazy" is? "crazy" is

"majority rules". Take germs for example.

JEFFREY

In the 18th century there was no such

thing! Nobody'd ever imagined such a

thing -- no sane person anyway. Along

comes this doctor...Semmelweiss, I

think. He tries to convince people...

other doctors mostly...that there are

these teeny tiny invisible "bad things"

called germs that get into your body and

make you...sick! He's trying to get

doctors to wash their hands. What is

this guy...crazy? Teeny tiny invisible

whaddayou call 'em?..."germs"!

COLE IN THE CINEMA

The movie never changes -- it can't change

-- but everytime you see it, it seems

to be different because you're different

-- you notice different things.

Goodwill Hunting Script

INT. TRI-TECH LABORATORIES, OFFICE -- SAME

Three well dressed TRI-TECH EXECUTIVES sit around a conference

table, which is littered with promotional brochures. The

executives exchange a confused look. One of them speaks.

EXECUTIVE

(tentative)

Well, Will, I'm not exactly sure what

you mean, we've already offered you a

position..

Cut to reveal: Chuckie sitting across from the executives,

hair combed down, wearing his Sunday best.

CHUCKIE

Since this is obviously not my first

time in such altercations, let me say

this:

Chuckie rubs the tips of his fingers together, indicating

"cash." The executives are baffled.

CHUCKIE (cont'd)

Look, we can do this the easy way or

the hard way.

The executives are completely blank.

CHUCKIE (cont'd)

At the current time I am looking at a

number of different fields from which

to disseminate which offer is most

pursuant aid to my benefit.

(a beat)

What do you want? What do I want?

What does anybody want? Leniency.

EXECUTIVE

I'm not sure--

CHUCKIE

--These circumstances are mitigated.

Right now. They're mitigated.

Chuckie puts his hands up, as if getting a vibe from the room.

EXECUTIVE

Okay...

Chuckie points to the third executive.

CHUCKIE

He knows what I'm talking about.

The third executive is baffled.

CHUCKIE (cont'd)

A retainer. Nobody in this town works

without a retainer. You think you can

find someone who does, you have my

blessin'. But I think we all know

that person isn't going to represent

you as well as I can.

EXECUTIVE

Will, our offer starts you at eighty-

four thousand a year, plus benefits.

CHUCKIE

Retainer...

EXECUTIVE

You want us to give you cash right

now?

CHUCKIE

Allegedly, what I am saying is your

situation will be concurrently improved

if I had two hundred sheets in my pocket

right now.

The executives exchange looks and go for their wallets.

EXECUTIVE

I don't think I...Larry?

EXECUTIVE

I have about seventy-three...

EXECUTIVE

Will you take a check?

CHUCKIE

Come now...what do you think I am, a

juvinile? You don't got any money on

you right now. You think I'm gonna

take a check?

EXECUTIVE

It's fine, John, I can cover the rest.

CHUCKIE

That's right, you know.

(turns to #1)

He knows.

Chuckie stands up and takes the money.

CHUCKIE (cont'd)

(to exec #1)

You're suspect.

I don't know what your reputation is,

but after the shit you tried to pull

today, you can bet I'll be looking

into it. Any conversations you want

to have with me heretofore, you can

have with my attourney. Good day to

you Gentlemen, and until that day comes,

keep your ears to the grindstone.

From Becket:

He'll checkmate the lot of you! - King Henry on Becket, in ‘Becket’

Thomas a Becket: Honor is a private matter within; it's an idea, and every man has his own version of it.

King Henry II: How gracefully you tell your king to mind his own business.

King Henry II: Let us drink, gentlemen. Let us drink, till we roll under the table in vomit and oblivion.

King Henry II: He's read books, you know, it's amazing. He's drunk and wenched his way through London but he's thinking all the time.

Thomas a Becket: Tonight you can do me the honor of christening my forks.

King Henry II: Forks?

Thomas a Becket: Yes, from Florence. New little invention. It's for pronging meat and carrying it to the mouth. It saves you dirtying your fingers.

King Henry II: But then you dirty the fork.

Thomas a Becket: Yes, but it's washable.

King Henry II: So are your fingers. I don't see the point.

AMERICAN PSYCHO – Business card scene

INT. CONFERENCE ROOM, PIERCE & PIERCE - DAY

Bateman and Luis Carruthers are seated at a long table in

the conference room at Pierce & Pierce, which looks out onto

a spectacular view of Manhattan.

CARRUTHERS

Patrick, thanks so much for looking after Courtney.

Dorsia, how impressive! How on earth did you get a

reservation there?

BATEMAN

Lucky, I guess.

CARRUTHERS

That's a wonderful jacket. Let me guess,

Valentino Couture?

BATEMAN

Uh huh.

CARRUTHERS

(Reaching out to touch it)

It looks so soft.

BATEMAN

(Catching Luis hand)

Your compliment was sufficient Luis.

Carruthers is distracted by a question from the colleague

on his left.Paul Owen enters, carrying the Wall St. Journal

under his arm. He is handsome, supremely confident and

self-satisfied; he sees himself as a leader among men.

OWEN

(To Bateman)

Hello, Halberstam. Nice tie. How the hell are you?

BATEMAN

I've been great. And you?

Their conversation fades down as we hear Bateman's

thoughts.

BATEMAN (V.O.)

Owen has mistaken me for this dickhead Marcus Halberstam.

It seems logical because Marcus also works at P&P and in

fact does the same exact thing I do and he also has a

penchant for Valentino suits and Oliver Peoples glasses.

Marcus and I even go to the same barber, although I have

a slightly better haircut.

During this voiceover the CAMERA WANDERS over to MARCUS

HALBERSTAM, who is conferring with a colleague in the

opposite corner of the room. He bears a

superficial resemblance to Bateman.

OWEN

How's the Ransom account going, Marcus?

BATEMAN

(Nervous)

It's...it's...all right.

OWEN

Really? That's interesting.

(He stares at Bateman, smiling)

Not great?

BATEMAN

Oh well, you know.

OWEN

And how's Cecilia? She's a great girl.

BATEMAN

Oh yes. I'm very lucky.

McDermott and Price enter.

McDERMOTT

Hey. Owen! Congratulations on the Fisher account.

OWEN

Thank you, Baxter.

PRICE

Listen, Paul. Squash?

OWEN

Call me.

(Hands him a business card)

PRICE

How about Friday?

OWEN

No can do. Got a res at eight-thirty at Dorsia. Great sea

urchin ceviche. There is a stunned silence as he walks away

and sits in a corner of the room, ostentatiously studying papers.

CLOSE-UP on Bateman's face, cold with hatred.

PRICE

(Whispering)

Jesus. Dorsia? On a Friday night? How'd he swing that?

McDERMOTT (Whispering)

I think he's lying.

Bateman takes out his wallet and pulls out a card.

PRICE

(Suddenly enthused)

What's that, a gram?

BATEMAN

New card. What do you think?

McDermott lifts it up and examines the lettering carefully.

McDERMOTT

Whoa. Very nice. Take a look.

He hands it to Van Patten.

BATEMAN

Picked them up from the printers yesterday

VAN PATTEN

Good coloring.

BATEMAN

That's bone. And the lettering is something called

Silian Rail.

McDERMOTT

(Envious)

Silian Rail?

VAN PATTEN

It is very cool, Bateman. But that's nothing.

He pulls a card out of his wallet and slaps it on the

table.

VAN PATTEN

Look at this.

They all lean forward to inspect it.

PRICE

That's really nice.

Bateman clenches his fists beneath the table, trying to

control his anxiety.

VAN PATTEN

Eggshell with Romalian type.

(Turning to Bateman)

What do you think?

BATEMAN

(Barely able to breath, his voice a croak)

Nice.

PRICE

(Holding the card up to the light)

Jesus. This is really super. How'd a nitwit like you get so

tasteful?

Bateman stares at his own card and then enviously at

McDermott's.

BATEMAN (V.O.)

I can't believe that Price prefers McDermott's card to mine.

PRICE

But wait. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

He holds up his own card.

PRICE

Raised lettering, pale nimbus white...

BATEMAN

(Choking with anxiety)

Impressive. Very nice. Let's see Paul Owen's card.

Price pulls a card from an inside coat pocket and holds it

up for their inspection: "PAUL OWEN, PIERCE & PIERCE,

MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS." Bateman swallows, speechless.

The sound in the room dies down and all we hear is a faint

heartbeat as Bateman stares at the magnificent card.

BATEMAN (V.O.)

Look at that subtle off-white coloring. The tasteful thickness

of it. Oh my God, it even has a watermark...

His hand shaking, Bateman lifts up the card and stares at it

until it fills the screen.

He lets it fall. The SOUND RETURNS TO NORMAL.

CARRUTHERS Is something wrong? Patrick...you're sweating.

There Will Be Blood

Plainview: Those areas have been drilled.

Eli Sunday: What?

Plainview: Those areas have been drilled.

Eli Sunday: ...no they haven't...

Plainview: It's called drainage. I own everything around it... so I get everything underneath it.

Eli Sunday: But there are no derricks there. This is the Bandy tract. Do you understand?

Plainview: Do you? I drink your water, Eli. I drink it up. Everyday. I drink the blood of lamb from Bandy's tract.

Plainview: Drainage! Drainage, Eli, you boy. Drained dry. I'm so sorry. Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake! I drink it up!

Quotes from 30 Rock

Jack: [to Liz] I like you. You have the boldness of a much younger woman.

Tracy: So what's your religion, Liz Lemon?

Liz: I pretty much just do whatever Oprah tells me to.

Jack: Lemon, I'm impressed. You're beginning to think like a businessman.

Liz: A businesswoman.

Jack: I don't think that's a word.

Jack: I'm not a creative type like you, with your work sneakers and left-handedness.

Kenneth: Oh no Sir, I don't vote Republican or Democrat. Choosing is a sin, so I always just write in the Lord's name.

Jack: That's Republican. We count those.

Jack: So what are you gonna do with your money? Put it into a 401(k)?

Liz: Yeah, I gotta get one of those.

Jack: What?! Where do you invest your money, Lemon?

Liz: I've got like twelve grand in checking.

Jack: Are you an immigrant?

Jack: Never go with a hippie to a second location.

Liz: I need to do that thing that rich people do where they turn money into more money. Can you teach me how to do that?

Jack: With my eyes closed.

Priest: Don't you have faith?

Jack: I have faith... in things I can see and buy and deregulate. Capitalism is my religion. Now, you want to have an intellectual argument? Fine, but I should warn you, I went to Princeton.

Priest: I went to Harvard Divinity School.

Jack: [scoffs] You crimson guys never miss a chance, do you? You want a confession? Let's get this done so I can go eat. I'm divorced. I take the Lord's name in vain often and with great relish. I hit my mother with a car, possibly by accident. [jump cut] ...I almost let him choke to death right there on the football field. I looked the other way when my wig-based parent company turned a bunch of children orange. I once claimed "I am God" during a deposition. [jump cut] and... I may have sodomized our former Vice President while under the influence of some weapons-grade narcotics. [sighs] It feels good to say that out loud actually. That one was weighing on me.

Priest: Wow! I, uh, I don't know what to say.

Terminator

SARAH - This is a mistake. I haven't done anything.

REESE - No. But you will. It's very important that you live.

SARAH - I can't believe this is happening. How could that man get up after you...

REESE - Not a man. A Terminator. Cyberdyne Systems Model 101.

SARAH - A machine? You mean, like what...a robot?

REESE - Not a robot. Cyborg.Cybernetic Organism.

SARAH - But...he was bleeding.

REESE - Just a second. Keep your head down.

REESE - Alright. Listen. The Terminator's an infiltration unit. Part man, part machine. Underneath, it's a combat chassis, hyperalloy, fully armored. Very tough...But outside, it's living human tissue. Flesh, skin, hair...blood.Grown for the cyborgs.

SARAH - Look, Reese, I know you want to help, but...

REESE - (cutting her off) Pay attention! The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy.But these are new. They look human. Sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot. I had to wait 'til he moved on you before I could zero him.

SARAH - Hey, I'm not stupid, y'know. They can't build anything like that yet.

REESE - No. Not yet. Not for about forty years.

---

REESE - (slow, but intense) Listen. Understand. That Terminator is out there. It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with...it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear...and it absolutely will not stop. Ever.Until you are dead.

SARAH - Can you stop it

REESE - Maybe. With these weapons...I don't know.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

The Godfather Trilogy

“I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.”

(Don Corleone to Johnny Fontane)

“You can act like a man! [slap] What’s wrong with you?”

(Don Corleone to Johnny Fontane)

But I’m a supersititous man. And if some unlucky accident should befall him – If he should get shot in the head by a police officer, or if he should hang himself in a jail cell – or if he’s struck by a bolt of lightening, then I’m to blame some of the people in this room, and that I do not forgive. But that aside, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one to break the peace we’ve made here today.”

(Don Corleone to the other Dons)

Never tell anybody outside the family what you’re thinking again.

(Don Corleone to Sonny)

Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me. But until that, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter’s wedding day.

If you had come to me in friendship then this scum that ruined your daughter would be suffering this very day.

(Don Corleone to Amerigo Bonasera)

I know it was you Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart.

(Michael to Fredo)

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

(Michael to Harrison and Connie)

I would burn in hell to keep you safe.

(Michael to Mary)

When they come, they’ll come at what you love.

(Michael to Vincent)

Never hate your enemies – it affects your judgement.

(Michael to Vincent)

Your enemies always get strong on what you leave behind.

(Vincent to the group)

Why was I so feared and you were so loved?

(Michael over Tommasino’s corpse)

Seinfeld “Jerry’s Stand-Up Confidential.”

How many times do you feel that, you know, that “I gotta get out”, right? “I gotta get out.” And you go out, you stand around for a little while, and you go “I gotta be getting back…I’ve been out, I’ve gotta get back, I’ve got to go to sleep, I’ve got to get up, I’ve got to go out again tomorrow. That is the feeling of life: you’ve gotta go. All the time. You get your job; what is your first thought? I wanna get home. Once you get home you feel cooped up, you getta get out. You’re out, it’s late, you gotta get back. Wherever you are, you gotta get the hell out of there.

Quote - FT Weekend edition, Jan 2005.

You soak up what happens to be in your vicinity, and then fondly imagine that your wants and your desires are your own creation. … Heidegger, the German philosopher, wrote wisely of the difficulty the individual experiences in freeing himself from the prejudices of the ‘they-self’: the ideas and images that he passively absorbs from the surrounding culture.

Quote - J.M Keynes

“the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is fuelled little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. – J.M Keynes

Quote - Ram Dass

You spent the first half of your life becoming somebody. Now you can work on becoming nobody, which is really somebody. For when you become nobody there is no tension, no pretense, no one trying to be anyone or anything. The natural state of the mind shines through unobstructed -- and the natural state of the mind is pure love.

Quote - Goethe

I have come to the frightening conclusion that I am the decisive element. It is my personal approach that creates the climate. It is my daily mood that makes the weather. I possess tremendous power to make life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration, I can humiliate or humour, hurt or heal. In all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis is escalated or de-escalated, and a person is humanised or dehumanised. If we treat people as they are we make them worse. If we treat them as they ought to be, we help them become what they are capable of becoming.

Herbert Simon (1916 - 2001)

... in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.

Mark Twain

… substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them; whereas there is not a rag of originality about them anywhere except the little discoloration they get from his mental and moral calibre and his temperament, which is revealed in characteristics of phrasing. . . . It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a photograph, or a telephone, or any other Important thing-- and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite--that is all he did.

How to be Free

By Tim Hodgkinson

… it is important to read decent stuff. Put quality materials into your mind, quality ingredients. A diet of good writing, without crappy newspapers and magazine, which just make the anxiety worse, will produce quality thoughts and a self-sufficient, resourceful person. Feed your mind.

Sometimes I think that life is becoming no more than staring at a screen. We stare at a screen all day at work. They we get home and stare at our computer screen before staring at the TV screen. For entertainment, we stare at cinema screens. Screens make us into passive receivers. Smash the screen and find a pencil and a piece of paper instead.

Put simply, if you avoid consuming the products of the system, then you will not have to pay for those products. This way, you will save not only the money that you used to spend on umpteen services, you will also save on the time and mental hassle spent dealing with all those bills. The oppression will gradually depart from your doorstep. And you won’t have to work so hard. Life will become cheaper and easier.

‘There isn’t a job good enough for me. There isn’t a job good enough for anyone.’ – S.L. Lowndes, letter to the Sunday Times, 1982.

… we tend to try to become very good at one small thing to the exclusion of all others. This is called professionalism but could more accurately be labelled ‘being useless’.

‘Learn a craft’ is what I suggest to young writers who contact the Idler: carpentry or blacksmithing or gardening or upholstery; such pursuits sit alongside the life of the mind very well. It is wise to reject utterly as a piece of bourgeois propaganda the oppressive aphorism ‘jack of all trades and master of none’. No: you can do lots of things. You can chop wood and carry water and write poems. You can combine small-holding with software design. One Idler reader is a classical tuba player who is also a trained plasterer. He loves both and both earn him an income. Why limit yourself to one small field?

From the medieval age and right up to 1500 and beyond, lending money at interest, or usury, was strictly off the agenda for anyone who was serious about his or her salvation. It was a sin, it was proscribed, it was evil.

The reason for the outlawing of usury was that time was a gift from God and therefore it could not be bought or sold. Christ, in St Luke’s Gospel, says, ‘Lend, hoping for nothing again’.

Think of the other meaning of ‘consumption’, a deadly disease of romantic poets, which consumed the body until it expired, have been sapped, drained, used up, emptied out. To be a consumer is to drain the world, to eat it, to stuff it into our faces, to whither it, to dry up its resources, to mine it of all its bounty; in short, to kill it. But being a creator or a producer, that is the very opposite.

The best thing is to possess pleasures without being their slave’ not to be devoid of pleasures. Aristippus, 435-356 BC.

Our built-in stupidity is what makes us fearful, We can’t do enough for ourselves and therefore rely on others to do things, and that makes us scared. We have also been told since the days of the Protestant revolution that we are more or less alone in this world, that we should trust nobody and suffer alone and in silence. How different from the old ‘brotherhood of man’ of pre-1500 days, where we were all in this together.

But. Insists Neitzsche, “To ask it again: to what extent can suffering balance debts or guilt?” What difference does it make? My suffering makes no difference to anyone else. It is a negative; it is completely pointless; it has no practical benefit to anyone.

It is better to do things for ourselves. D.H. Lawrence, in his essay ‘Education of the People’, makes a powerful argument against the employment of cleaners and the like for those who wish to be free from servitude.

So the only answer, therefore, and this is difficult one to pull off, is to learn to love the washing-up. In the words of Lawrence:

‘‘The actual doing of things is in itself a joy. If I wash the dishes, I learn a quick, light touch of china and earthenware, the feel of it, the weight and the roll and the poise of it, the peculiar hotness, the quickness of slowness of its surface. I am at the middle of an infinite complexity of motions and adjustments and quick, apprehensive contacts. Nimble faculties hover and play along my nerves, the primal consciousness is alert in me. Apart from all the moral or practical satisfaction derived from a thing well done, I have the mindless motor activity and reaction in primal consciousness, which is a pure satisfaction. If I am to be well satisfied, as a human being, a large part of my life must pass in mindless motion, quick, busy activity in which I am neither bought nor sold, but acting alone and free from the centre of my own active isolation. Not self-consciously, however. Not watching my own reactions. If I wash dishes, I wash them to get them clean. Nothing else.’

In a world where you are constantly asked to be ‘committed’, it is liberating to give yourself the license to be a dilettante. Commit to nothing. Try everything.

When I walk down the Uxbridge Road in London, I see Somalians, Indians and West Indians simply hanging out and talking in groups. They are outside their shops, they are at their stalls in the market. But most of the white middle classes hurry through this scene alone, rushing back to the security of their burglar-alarmed terraced houses. We have lost that easy camaraderie of life, and we’re lucky that people from other cultures have moved to our cities and are demonstrating a more humane and enjoyable way of living right under our noses.

It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being … [machines] have enabled a greater population to live the same life of drudgery and imprisonment, and an increased number of manufacturers and others to make fortunes. – John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, 1848

Machines have become as much like people as people have become like machines. They pulsate with life, while man becomes a robot. – E.F. Schumacher, Good Work (a letter written by a British worker)

As the gloomy Robert Burton writes:

‘In adversity I wish for prosperity, and in prosperity fear adversity … what condition of life is free? Wisdom hath labour annexed to it, glory envy, riches and cares, children and incumbrances, pleasure and diseases, rest and beggary, go together, as if man were therefore born to be punished in this life for some precedent sins.’

This is not to deny the pleasures of the log fire; indeed, the pleasures of the log fire are all the more intense when you have just been out in the snow to chop up the logs for it.

Humanity knows nothing at all. There is no intrinsic value in anything, and every action is a futile, meaningless effort. – Masanobu Fukuoka, The One-Straw Revolution, 1978

The rise of the pension as a sort of earthly reward for having suffered forty years or more in a job you didn’t like – this is something new. Likewise, pension as a kind of national entitlement. A pension has become something that you work for rather than something that you get after working. In other words, it is an expression of reward by the authorities for good work, the ‘secular afterlife’, in the words of my friend Matthew de Abaitu. Suffer now: enter paradise later.

We must learn to respect each other’s privacy, and not to impose our moral standards on each other. The Puritan imagines that his moral standard is the moral standard; he does not realise that other ages and other countries, and ever other groups in his own country, have moral standards different to his, to which they have as good a right as he has to his. Unfortunately, the love of power which is the natural outcome of Puritan self-denial makes the Puritan more executive than other people, and makes it difficult for other people to resist him.

- Bertland Russell, The Recrudescence of Puritanism

What on Earth Happened? - Christopher Lloyd

(On 5,000-3,000 BC, when natural disasters, the Bronze Age, and domesticated horses led to waves of destruction)

Not all human civilisations were as vulnerable to nature’s disruptive fits. While some grew up as fixed communities next to rivers such as the Nile and the Indus, or beside the ocean, like the Minoans, others stuck to a more nomadic way of life. These people didn’t depend on any fixed course of water, like a river, nor did they live in communities that could be swept away by the sea. Theirs was a life-style closer to the original hunter-gatherer state of nature, but with one important difference. Rather than always relying on hunting, they took with them domesticated goats, pigs and cows as a regular, dependable supply of food, drink and transport.

People who wonder from place to place living off domesticated flocks of animals that travel with them are called nomadic pastoralists. If disaster struck in one region, they simply moved on to another where conditions were less volatile. These people found they could make a handsome living as traders by wandering with their herds from place to place, carrying good from one civilisation to the next.

Your Inner Fish – Neil Shubin

If you consider that over 99 percent of all species that ever lived are now extinct, that only a very small fraction are preserved as fossils, and that an even smaller fraction still are ever found, then any attempt to see our past seems doomed from the start.

Fossils are one of the major lines of evidence we use to understand ourselves. (Genes and embryos are others … ). Most people do not know that finding fossils is something we can do with surprising precision and predictability. We work at home to maximise our chances of success in the field. Then we let luck take over.

Our example will show us one of the great transitions in the history of life: the invasion of land by fish. For billions of years, all life lived only in water. Then, as of about 365 million years ago, creatures also inhabited land. Life in these two environments is radically different. Breathing in water requires very different organs than breathing air. The same is true or excretion, feeding, and moving about. A whole new kind of body had to arise. At fist glance, the divide between the two environments appears almost unbridgeable. But everything changes when we look at the evidence; what looks impossible actually happened.

My colleague … and others have uncovered amphibians from rocks in Greenland that are about 365 millions years old. With their necks, ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find fish that look like, well, fish. … Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should focus on rocks about 375 million years old to find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.

Now the challenge is to find rocks that were formed under conditions capable of preserving fossils.

The best place to look are those where we can walk for miles over the rock to discover areas where bones are “weathering out.” Fossil bones are often harder than the surrounding rock and so erode at a slightly slower rate and present a raised profile on the rock surface. Consequently, we like to walk over bare bedrock, find a smattering of bones on the surface, then dig in.

So here is the trick to designing a fossil expedition: find rocks that are the right age, of the right type (sedimentary), and well exposed, and we are in business. Ideal fossil-hunting sites have little soil cover or vegetation, and have been subject to few human disturbances. Is it any surprise that a significant fraction of discoveries happen in desert areas? In the Gobi Desert. In the Sahara. In Utah. In Artic deserts, such as Greenland.

… the (Canadian Arctic) area perfectly fit our criteria: age, type, and exposure. Even better, it was unknown to vertebrate paleontologists, and therefore unprospected for fossils.

... The next piece of evidence came from Philadelphia a week later. Fred, a magician with his dental tools, uncovered a whole fin in his block. At the right place, just at the end of the forearm bones, the fin had that bone. And that bone attached to four more beyond. We were staring at the origin of a piece of our own bodies inside this 375-million-year-old fish. We had a fish with a wrist.

Just as Darwin’s theory predicted: at the right time, at the right place, we had found intermediates between apparently two different kinds of animals.

Seeing Tiktaalik is seeing our history as fish.

Bend you wrist back and fourth. Open and close your hand, When you do this, you are using joints that first appeared in the fins of fish like Tiktaalik. Earlier, these joints did not exist. Later, we find them in limbs.

…why not take cues from the expert? ... Chuck did not look at every rock, and when he chose to look at one, for the life of me I couldn’t figure out why. Then there was the really embarrassing aspect of all this: Chuck and I would look at the same patch of ground. I saw nothing but rock – barren desert floor. Chuck saw fossil teeth, jaws, and even chunks of skull.

An aerial view would have shown two people walking alone in the middle of a seemingly limitless plain, where the vista of the dusty red and greed sandstone mesas, buttes, and badlands extended for miles. But Chuck and I were only staring at the ground … The fossil we sought were tiny, no more that a few inches long, and ours was a very small world. The intimate environment stood in extreme contrast to the vastness of the desert panorama that surrounded us. I felt as if my walking partner was the only person on the entire planet, and my whole existence was focused on pieces of rubble.

Chuck was extraordinarily patient with me as I pestered him with questions for the better part of each day’s walk. I wanted him to describe exactly how to find bones. Over and over, he told me to look for ‘something different’, something that had the texture of bone, not rock, something that glistened like teeth, something that looked like an arm bone, not a piece of sandstone. Try as I might, I still returned home each day empty-handed. Now it was even more embarrassing, as Chuck, who was looking at the same rocks, came home with bag after bag.

Finally, one day, I saw my first piece of tooth glistening in the desert sun. It was sitting in some sandstone rubble, but there it was, plain as day. The enamel had a sheen that no other rock had; it was like nothing I had seen before. Well, not exactly – I was looking at things like it every day. The difference was this time I finally saw it, saw the distinction between rock and bone. The too glistened, and when I saw it glisten I spotted its cusps. The whole isolated tooth was about the size of a dime, not included the roots that projected from its base. To me, it was as glorious as the biggest dinosaur in the halls of any museum.

All of a sudden, the desert exploded with bone; where once I had seen only rock, now I was seeing bits and pieces of fossil everywhere, as if I were wearing a special new pair of glasses and a spotlight was shining on all the different pieces of bone. Next to the tooth were small fragments of other bones, then more teeth. I started to return home with my own little bags each night.

Now that I could finally see bones for myself, what once seemed a haphazard group effort started to look decidedly ordered. People weren’t just scattering randomly across the desert; there were real though unspoken rules. Rule number one: go to the most productive-looking rocks, judging by whatever search image or visual cues you’ve gained from previous experience. Rule number two: don’t follow in anybody’s footsteps; cover new ground (Chuck had graciously let me break this one). Rule three: if your plum area already has somebody on it, find a new plum, or search a less promising site. First come, first served.

In seeing embryos, I was seeing a common architecture. The species ended up looking different, but they started from a generally similar place. Looking at embryos, it almost seems that the differences among mammals, birds, amphibians, and fish simply pale in comparison with their other fundamental similarities.

If we were to cut ourselves in half (an early development of embryonic development)… we would find a tube within a tube. The outer tube would be our body wall, the inner tube our eventual digestive tract. A space, the future body cavity, separates the two tubes. This tube-within-a-tube structure stays with us our entire lives. The gut tube gets more complicated, with a big sac for a stomach and long intestinal twists and turns. The outer tube is complicated by hair, skin, ribs, and limbs that push out. But the basic plan persists. We may be more complicated that we were at twenty-one days after conception, but we are still a tube within a tube…

Here’s a humbling thought for all of us worms, fish, and humans: most of life’s history is the story of single-celled creatures. Virtually everything we have talked about thus far – animals with hands, heads, sense organs, even body plans – has been around for only a small fraction of the earth’s history. Those of us who teach paleontology often use the analogy of the ‘earth year’ to illustrate how tiny that fraction is. Take the entire 4.5-billion-year history of the earth and scale it down to a single year, with January 1 being the origin of earth and midnight December 31 being the present. Until June, the only organisms were single-celled microbes, such as algae, bacteria, and amoebae. The first animal with a head did not appear until October. The first human appears on December 31.

… Rocks older than 600 million years are generally devoid of animals or plants. In them we only find single-celled creatures or colonies of algae.

… more exciting would be some tangible experimental evidence that shows how predation could bring about bodies. That is essentially what Martin Boraas and his colleagues provided. They took an algae that is normally single-celled and let it live in the lab for over a thousand generations. Then they introduced a predator: a single-celled creature with a flagellum that engulfs other microbes to ingest them. In less than two hundred generations, the algae responded by becoming a clump of hundreds of cells; over time, the number of cells dropped until there were only eight in each clump. Eight turned out to be optimum because it made clumps large enough to avoid being eaten but small enough so that each cell could pick up light to survive. The most surprising thing happened when the predator was removed: the algae continued to reproduce and form individuals with eight cells. In short, a simple version of a multicellular form had arisen from a no-body.

There are obvious advantages of becoming a creature with a large body: besides avoiding predators, animals with bodies can eat other, smaller creatures and actively move long distances. Both of these abilities allow the animals to have more control over their environment. But both consume a lot of energy. Bodies require even more energy as they get larger, particularly if they incorporate collagen. Collagen requires a relatively large amount of oxygen for its synthesis and would have greatly increased our ancestor’s need for this important metabolic element.

But the problem was this: levels of oxygen on the ancient earth were very low. For billions of years oxygen levels in the atmosphere did not come close to what we have today. Then, roughly a billion years ago, the amount of oxygen increased dramatically

… A cause for the origin of bodies was (also) in place: by a billion years ago, microbes had learned to eat each other. There was a reason to build bodies, and the tools to do so where already there.

Something was missing. That something was enough oxygen on the earth to support bodies. When the earth’s oxygen increased, bodies appeared everywhere. Life would never be the same.

We humans are part of a lineage that has traded smell for sight. We now rely on vision more than smell, and this is reflected in our genome. In this trade-off, our sense of smell was desensitized, and many of our olfactory genes became functionless.

… Like photocopies that lose their fidelity as they are repeatedly copied, our olfactory genes get more dissimilar as we compare ourselves to successively more primitive creatures. … That baggage is a silent witness to our past; insides our noses is a veritable tree of life.

Hurt your knee and you almost certainly injure one or more of three structures: the medial meniscus, the medial collateral ligament, or the anterior cruciate ligament. So regular are the injuries to these three parts of your knee that these structures are known among doctors as the “Unhappy Triad”. They are clear evidence of the pitfalls of having an inner fish. Fish do not walk on two legs.

Our humanity comes at a cost. For the exceptional combination of things we do – talk, think, grasp, and walk on two legs – we pay a price. This is an inevitable result of the tree of life inside of us.

… In many ways, we humans are the fish equivalent of a hot-rod Beetle. Take the body plan of a fish, dress it up to be a mammal, then tweak and twist that mammal until it walks on two legs, talks, thinks, and has superfine control of its fingers. We can dress up a fish only so much without paying a price. In a perfectly designed world – one with no history – we would not have to suffer everything from haemorrhoids to cancer.

Nowhere is this history more visible that in the detours, twists and turns of our arteries, nerves and veins. Follow some nerves and you’ll find that they make strange loops around other organs, apparently going in one direction only to twist and turn and end up in an unexpected place. The detours are fascinating products of our past that … often create problems for us – hiccups and hernias, for example. And this is only one way our past comes back to haunt us.

Our deep history was spent, at different times, in ancient oceans, small streams, and savannahs, not office buildings, ski slopes, and tennis courts. We were not designed to live past the age of eighty, sit on our keisters for ten hours a day, and eat Hostess Twinkies, not were we designed to play football. This disconnect between our past and our human present means that our bodies fall apart in certain predictable ways.

… we were not designed rationally, but are the products of a convoluted history.

During our history as fish we were active predators in ancient oceans and streams. During our more recent past as amphibians reptiles, and mammals, we were active creatures preying on everything from reptiles to insects. Even more recently, as primates, we were active tree-living animals, feeding on fruits and leaves. Early humans were active hunter-gatherers and, ultimately, agriculturalists. Did you notice a theme here? That common thread is the word “active.”

The bad news is that most of us spend a large portion of our days being anything but active. … Our history from fish to early human in no way prepared us for this new regimen. This collision between past and present had its signature in many of the aliments of modern life.

… Neel suggested that our human ancestors were adapted for a boom-bust existence. … periods of plenty would be punctuated by times of scarcity, when our ancestors had considerably less to eat.

… in this context fat storage becomes very useful. … but it fails miserably in an environment where rich foods are available 24/7. Obesity and its associated maladies – age-related diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease – become the natural state of affairs. The thrifty genotype hypothesis also might explain why we love fatty foods.

Our sedentary lifestyle affects us in other ways, because our circulatory system originally appeared in more active animals.

… Because arteries are closer to the pump, the blood pressure in them is much higher than in veins. This can be a particular problem for the blood that needs to return to our heart from our feet. Blood from the feet needs to go uphill, so to speak, up the veins of our legs to our chest. If the blood is under low pressure, it may not climb all the way. Consequently, we have two features that help the blood move up. The first are little valves that permit the blood to move up but stop it from going down. The other feature is our leg muscles. When we walk we contract them, and this contraction serves to pump the blood up our leg veins.

… This system works superbly in an active animal, which uses its legs to walk, run, and jump. It does not work well in a more sedentary creature. If the legs are not used much, the muscles will not pump the blood up the veins. Problems can develop if blood pools in the veins, because that pooling can cause the valves to fail. This is exactly what happens with varicose veins.

Talking comes at a steep price: choking and sleep apnea are high on the list of problems we have to live with in order to be able to sleep. … we use the same passage to swallow, breathe, and talk. These functions can be at odds, for example when a piece of food gets lodged in the trachea.

The parallels between our hiccups and gill breathing in tadpoles are so extensive that many have proposed that the two phenomena are one and the same. Gill breathing in tadpoles can be blocked by carbon dioxide, just like our hiccups.

Panic Nation – Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks

'All things are poison and nothing is without poison. It is the dose that makes a thing poisonous.' - Paracelsus, father of modern toxicology (1493 - 1541)

- The default setting for the human condition is now widely seen as being in a state of vulnerability and victim hood. The autonomous individual who stands on how or her own two feet appears to be an endangered species. Instead, the assumption is that we are pretty pathetic specimens who must need professional intervention and advice to protect us from the problems of everyday life. We are a society on the couch, under the supervision of the therapeutic state.

- There is no such thing as junk food. All food is composed of carbohydrate, fat and protein. An intake of a certain amount of each is essential for a healthy life. In addition, a supply of certain minerals ... and fluid contribute to health. Once the necessary amounts of carbohydrate, fat and protein have been taken, any long term surplus is stored as glycogen or fat in the body. Protein is protein, whether it comes from an Aberdeen Angus steak or a McDonald's hamburger. It is broken up in the gut in to its amino-acid building blocks, which are identical in both the hamburger and the steak ... Any excess ends up as fat. One source of animal protein is not necessarily of better value to the body than another, nor is it more fattening.

- It is not the particular food that makes people fat, it is the amount they eat.

- The most oft-quoted clinical trial in the last few years is the UK-based Heart Protection Study (HPS). A veritable triumph for statins, demonstrating protection in almost every group studied. What is most intriguing, however, is that the protection was apparent if the starting cholesterol as high, average or low. … So, if statins do protect those … there must be some other mechanism of action, unrelated to cholesterol lowering. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence to support the idea that statins have a whole series of protective actions.

- There are few studies of the long-term consequences of a low-salt diet in terms of mortality from cardiovascular disease. … In a study in 1995, of the relationship between dietary salt intake and heart attacks among men with high blood pressure, Michael Alderman and colleagues followed up 2,937 subjects for an average of nearly four years. The frequency of heart attacks was lowest in the group with the highest salt intake. … These studies do not prove there is a hazard associated with a low-salt diet but they give cause for concern.

Without adequate randomised trials to show that it is effective and establish its long-term safety, in particular to show reduced mortality, the imposition of a low-salt diet by government diktat appears particularly foolhardy and without any scientific basis.

Ubiquity by Mark Buchanan (blog post)

'The 1998 fire in Yellowstone burned 1.5 millions acres. In a critical state of course, there is no reason to look for specific causes of really big events. The mere existence of critical organisation means that terrific fires will occasionally break out, no matter what, since the forest is poised on the edge of disaster ...' The author goes on to describe the 'Yellowstone effect', where from 1890 the US Forest Service introduced a 'zero tolerance' approach to fires, but had the unintended effect of leading to more flammable natural matter, driving the forest to 'an even more unstable state, a supercritical state, with burnable material everywhere.' Now they allow smaller fires to burn, and even have prescribed managed burns, removing some of the deadwood and enabling new growth, and reducing the risk of a disturbance creating large scale environmental disaster.

Discusses the 'Big Five' mass extinctions that struck the planet 44, 365, 250, 210, and 65 million years ago.

'Of course, not every extinction is part of a mass extinction. Evolutionary biologists estimate that some few billion different species have evolved at one time or another during the course of life's history. Only a few tens of millions exist today, however, which means that 99 per cent of all species in history are now extinct. Extinction is so natural an event in evolution that as someone once said, "to a first approximation, everything is extinct." As it turns out, only 35 per cent of all species died as part of a mass extinction.'

The false idea of the scientist as an 'automaton driven by the the holy trinity of rationality, objectivity, and open-mindedness':

On the basis of detailed historical studies of how science has really worked in practice, for example, the historian Michael Polyani came to the conclusion that scientists are not actually so open-minded and rational as they would have you believe. ... Instead of always being open-minded,Polyani found, scientists often have their eyes and minds closed.

... (Harvard University's Kuhn) found that scientists did not promptly reject the old theories when they were judged to rationally and objectively to be lacking in the courtroom of facts. Kuhn noticed instead that scientists at any moment seem to be emotionally committed to a shared set of ideas, and will not even consider rejecting these ideas unless their 'maladjustment' to the nature they are meant to describe becomes obviously and intolerably great.

Author discusses history using the analogy of the grain of sand that triggers an avalanche in a sand pile:

'... the largest avalanches are far and away the most influential in terms of the effects they have on the pile. ... how should some historian explain these movements?

Out historian will be sorely tempted to identify certain individual grains as having been massively influential. After all, colleagues will point out that in 1942, an individual grain of immense courage named Granular Columbus triggered an avalanche that ultimately carried grains all the way from the East to the West, and so altered the face of the world and its future. ... For each great event, they can identify some extraordinary grain that touched it off, and perhaps a few others that kept it going at crucial stages. And these grains, they might conclude, are the real agents of history.

Despite being tempted to agree, our historian (a subtle observer of individual character) will have noticed that in the sand world every grain is identical to every other, so there really can be no question of any one being a Great Grain. … By understanding that the pile is always on the edge of radical change, our historian comes to realise that there are always places in the pile at which the falling of a single grain can trigger world-changing effects. These grains are only special, however, because they happened to fall in the right place at the right time. In a critical world, there are necessarily a few great roles and some grains by necessity fall into them.

Might the same be true of human history? There is no denying that some people, by virtue of their personality or intelligence, are more influential than others. And yet it is at least a theoretical possibility that our world exists in something very much like a critical state. In such a world, even if human being were identical in their abilities, a few would nevertheless find themselves in situations in which their ordinary actions would have truly staggering consequences. They might not even be aware of it, as the potential for their actions to propagate might only become apparent as history unfolded. Such individuals might come to be known as great men or great women, as creators of vast social movements of tremendous import. Many of them might indeed be exceptional. But this need not imply that their greatness accounts for the greatness of the events they sparked off.

Just as it is almost irresistibly tempting to seek great causes behind the great earthquakes or the mass extinctions, it is also tempting to see great persons behind the great events in history. But the sand-pile historian comes down firmly against the ‘great grain’ theory of history … Our historian might agree with Georg Wilhel Friedrich Hegel, who concluded that:

‘The great man of the age is one who can out into words the will of his age, tell his age what its will is, and accomplish it. What he dies is the heart and essence of his age; he actualises his age.’

… what makes an individual notable and ‘great’ is the ability to unleash pent-up forces – the will of the age – and so enable those immeasurably greater forces to have their effect.

In the context of science, Einstein was a genius of the first order. … But the theory of relativity was revolutionary not because of Einstein’s genius, but because it represented a terrific avalanche in the fabric of ideas. Even if scientists were all genetic clones, such revolutionary ideas would still be set off by a select few. To borrow a phrase of the biologist Edward O.Wilson, ‘Genius is the summed up production of the many with the names of the few attached for easy recall.’

It does not seem normal and law-like for long periods of calm to be suddenly and sporadically shattered by cataclysm, and yet it is. This is, it seems, the ubiquitous nature of the world.

Bears – A Brief History, by Bernd Brunner

Most scientists today recognize eight species of bears worldwide.

All living bears today have descended from a common ancestor known as Ursavus, or “dawn bear.” This animal, which lived about twenty million years ago, was about the size of a small terrier. Even at this early point in evolutionary history, however, Ursavus had a jaw already markedly different from that of a dog. Over time, groups of this early bear species split off and wandered into different habitats, where they adapted to new and better environments and to available sources of food. Each group underwent its own course of evolution.

Throughout human history, each scientist could base his classification scheme only on the limited knowledge he possessed at a particular point in time.

Armed with a magnifying glass, he (Merriam Webster), he painstakingly investigated every bear tooth and skull in the Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. Merriam proceeded to subdivide Ursus horribilis into no less than eighty-six separate subspecies. … (he) firmly believed that ‘it is not the business of the naturalist to either create of suppress subspecies, but to endeavour to ascertain how many Nature has established.’ Merriam’s classification scheme, however, has not withstood the test of time; it has come to be recognised as a classic example of taxonomic over-splitting. Today the names Ursus horribilis and Ursus arctos horribilis are used only rarely; they remind us of how this animal was demonized and driven to extinction in many parts of North America.

(On Christian bear legends) Other saints, such as the missionary Korbinian, demonstrated their power by taming bears. After a wild bear killed his horse during a pilgrimage to Rome, the saint loaded his possessions on the bear’s back as punishment and continued on his way. Once he reached Rome, the holy man released the bear from servitude.

The many surviving stories about bears reveal the variety of roles that they have played in the human imagination, from enemies of mankind to their protective spirits. One of the most prominent and persistent threads of such tales is the assumption that bears and humans are intimately related. While this kinship sometimes appears to be merely symbolic, at other times once can sense a genuine belief underlying such accounts that bears are our not-so-distant relatives. From out modern perspective, of course, this distinction belongs to the apes.

Other stories about bearlike humans come from Scandinavia. Legends relate that after the founding of the Norwegian kingdom more than a thousand years ago, an army of especially strong men was called into being. These fearsome warriors, or ‘berserkers’, dedicated their lives to the supreme god Wotan, also known as Odin. The word ‘berserker’ is presumably a combination of ‘beri’, Old Norse for ‘bear’, and ‘serkr’, for ‘shirt’, and thus literally means ‘clothed as a bear’. According to ancient Germanic texts, berserkers were indistinguishable from ordinary men in normal circumstances, but when they were aroused they could perform incredible feats such as ripping the rim of a shield with their teeth, swallowing glowing coals, or walking through blazing fire. Heidrek’s Saga relates that the twelve berserkers who were the brothers and sons of Arngrim of Holm possessed swords, forged by dwarves, that they wielded not only in battle but also, apparently in the grip of delusions, against trees and rocks.

An ordinary mortal had little chance when faced with an angry berserker, but there was one way to prevent the worst: before an outburst, a berserker would briefly become drowsy, providing a momentary opportunity to tie him up. A variety of triggers could prompt a berserker to go ‘berserk’, including the approach of darkness, strong emotions such as wrath or belligerence, intense pain, the taste of raw meat, or in the case of the Icelander Odd, the sight of blood. After his father and brother were killed by a polar bear, Odd beat the bear to death. From this point on, Odd was a classic berseker: irascible, unsociable, and tremendously strong.

Another legend relates that a seer once observed the berserkers Dufthak and Storolf as they fought at sundown in the forms of a bear and a bull. The next morning a desolate crater marked the location of their struggle.

As late as the eleventh century, there were still aristocrats who considered themselves to be descended from bears.

Some illustrations produced hundreds of years ago resemble mythica beings more than the real-life creatures they are meant to represent.

The theories of early nature writers about bears … could be extremely creative. As French scientist Georges Buffon was compelled to complain, “Among at least the generally known animals, there is none which the claims of researchers diverge so greatly as the bear.’

… up to five months can pass before the fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus – a process that tales only three of four days in humans – and only then develops into a bear cub. Scientists call this phenomenon, regulated by the hormonal processes, ‘delayed implantation.’ If the bear does not find enough food in the fall, hormonal processes cause the egg to be reabsorbed, thereby preventing the cubs’ birth.

Pliny further claimed that the soles of the bears’ paws contain a great deal of fat, which the animals consume – in other words, that bears have the ability to eat from their own bodies. … In actuality, the skin on bear paws regenerates during hibernation. Bears tend to audibly suck and chew on their paws during this time, probably an attempt to soothe the resulting itching or discomfort.

Lorenz Oken of Germany, first a doctor and then a natural scientist, set out in the 1830s to ‘compare and report on everything ever observed about the life and behaviour of animals and written in travelogues and newspapers since the earliest days.’ This monumental effort, according to Oken, consisted of unmasking ‘false citations’, reading ‘a lot of useless nonsense,’ and comparing ‘a great number of bad and thoughtless illustrations. He considered bears to be not particularly aggressive because they attack people only if provoked. The bear, Oken reported, ‘leads an unhappy, quiet, and lonely life and only associates with the female during the mating season.

..humans developed astounding explanations to account for hibernation. Swiss naturalist Conrad Gessner (1516-1565), for example, seemed to rely in good faith on the unlikely report of a Swiss goatherd. One day in the late fall, the man claimed, as he left his hut with a cheese pot on his head, he saw a bear in the distance pick a plant and eat it. After the bear had left the area the goatherd tasted the same plant himself, immediately lay down on the path, covered his head with the pot, and, despite the winter cold, slept until the onset of spring. Once a bear selects a suitable cave for his retreat, Gessner claimed, he backs into it as lightly as possible ‘so that the hunters do not come across his tracks.’

Physician Adolph W. Otto shared Prunelle’s view. He reported that he had kept a bear captive in a dark location in order to be able to observe him closely. When the bear was asleep he could be easily awakened, and Otto described him as weak and despondent debilis et morosus) rather than sleepy. That his experiment had nothing to do with a bear’s natural behaviour does not seem to have troubled the good doctor. He could not know that captive bears simply don’t hibernate.

Today we know more: brown bears spend three to four months in the winter in a resting state, which can be understood to be a less extreme form of genuine hibernation. In this way their winter habits differ from those of dormice or hedgehogs, who sleep uninterrupted for a long period each winter and thus truly hibernate. During this period of rest, the bear’s pulse slows and its body temperature drops by about two and a half degrees. Winter is an arduous time for bears: foraging for food is extremely difficult, made all the more so by their relatively short legs, which are not suited to wading through the snow. Entering a sleeplike state allows them to bypass the challenging winter. They prepare for this period of inactivity by accumulating far during the months when food is plentiful.

Giovanni Batista della Porta (1535-1615), an Italian naturalist and one of the first scientists in the modern sense, classified various human types according to the animals they supposedly resembled. … The ‘worst possible human characteristic of all’ was, for della Porta, the thoroughly bestial, ‘godforsaken idiot.’ This personality is revealed by dark eyes, a large belly, and mouth that is ‘so long and wide … that the face seems split in two.’ Such an individual resembles the ‘ferocious bear,’ whom della Porta condemned as stupid, scheming, dangerous, treacherous, and, as if this were not enough, ‘wilder than all other animals,’ thus uniting lack of intelligence with cruelty and coarseness in one unlikable package.

Swiss science author Peter Scheitlin (1779-1848), one of the forerunners of the animal-rights movement, viewed the bear, which he considered to be ‘a most remarkable animal’, as a thoroughly good-natured creature … ‘He is known to have approached young girls hunting for strawberries and stolen the fruit right from their baskets, and then went on his way – we can almost dare to say – laughing on his way,’ he wrote.

Roosevelt added that a wounded or cornered animal ‘will attack his foes with a headlong, reckless fury that renders him one of the most dangerous of the wild beasts.

For Tschudi (1820-1886), the bear had ‘a direct, open character free of cunning and deceit.’ The bear is far from harmless, however: ‘What the fox obtains with his wits and the eagle with his swiftness, the bear pursues with undisguised force.’

Zoology professor Gustav Jaeger was of the opinion that the bear represented a ‘kaleidoscopic’ figure like few other animals – and he did not intend this characterization as a compliment. Like the lion and the tiger, the bear can bring down the largest of mammals, yet it poaches the fields ‘like any mere ruminating beast’. It steals from orchards ‘like a monkey,’ eats berries from the stem ‘like a blackbird’, climbs after pinecones ‘like a squirrel’, plunders beehives and anthills ‘like a woodpecker,’ digs for maggots ‘like a pig’ and, finally, fishes and crabs ‘like an otter.’

Bears seem to like to travel in the footsteps of other bears: Russian bear researcher Aleksander Fyodorovich Middendorf (1815-1894) discovered a chain of such imprints stretching over hundreds of miles.

… it was once popular to take in bear cubs whose mothers had been killed in the hunt. People in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries seemed to have enjoyed the company of these amusing, fur-covered, wild ‘little people’ …

… accounts not only demonstrate that people and bear cubs have had astoundingly close relationships, they also reveal the limits of this intimacy. In 1857 for example, German professor Johann H.Blasius wrote that ‘bear cubs are easily tamed. They remain quite harmless until they are grown and become entirely used to their environment. Once they reach the age of four, however, they acquire a grimmer character, and those friendly relationships are usually destroyed by a violent outburst by the bear’s true nature.’

Once animals are truly domesticated, certain behavioural traits manifest themselves in their genes. Captive and seemingly ‘tame’ bears have never undergone this transformation. For evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond, the European brown bear’s ‘nasty disposition’ explains why this animal is ‘perhaps the most unlikely pet’.

… most Native American cultures sympathised with the animals they hunted. European settlers, however, were not burdened with such respectful attitudes toward their prey. The chase for grizzlies in the nineteenth century unfolded at breakneck speed…

… and when these settlers began raising cattle and farm stock their already negative perspective on bears took a dramatic turn for the worse. In Texas, for example, the number of cattle multiplied from one hundred thousand in 1830 to more than three and half million by 1860. This development was bad news for the abundant grizzly population – because the bears posed a dangerous risk to the valuable stock, killing them was considered good for business. … The introduction of high-powered repeating rifles further increased the number of bear hunters. Many of America’s plentiful bear populations were wiped out… …nowhere else have bears been wiped out in such a short amount of time.

The tragic accident that befell Adolf Cossmy (born ‘Kossmeyer’) in the mid-1930s, however, shows that handling large predators, however trusted and seemingly ‘tame,’ can still be a lethal undertaking. Cossmy, who as a young man travelled the world with groups of bears and lions, often approached his bears ‘naked’ – that is, without a whip and fork. His favourite animal was a large polar bear that sometimes posed as a model for artists. Cossmy had the unusual habit of giving the bear a kiss whenever it’s work was completed. Ironically enough, this beloved bear would be the end of him. One morning, as he was lathering and scrubbing the animal, he stumbled over an empty can, whereupon the startled bear flung himself upon its trainer and killed him.

Many if not most humans in the world today no longer understand what it means to live with bears. When a bear does risk proximity to humans, its presence is often interpreted either as a threat to life and property or as a sensation – or both. People, especially in densely populated areas, may react to bears in their midst with an excessive, irrational fear that amounts to veritable ‘bearnoia’. Japan offers a poignant example. We would normally expect that, to avert danger to man and beast alike, the driver of a full bus would hit the brakes if he saw a bear on the road. But in May 1958 near Furanocho, something very different occurred: the driver sped up – and the passengers encouraged him to do it. The poor bear was forced over a cliff and plummeted to its death.

Our fascination with bears also makes it difficult for us to recognize that, no matter how familiar their glance and gait may seem, bears are not interested in people. But indifference on their part should not prevent us from feeling admiration, respectful curiosity, and concern for the bears that share our world. I would like to have faith in our ability to devise intelligent ways for humans and bears to coexist - although I hope this book has made it clear that we should also keep a respectful distance from them. Since completely avoiding misanthromorphism may be impossible, perhaps we can think and speak of bears as our distant relatives in the forest who have their own way of doing things and simply prefer to keep to themselves. Let us not be disappointed - the bears cannot help it. We can avoid clashes with bears only if we learn to stay out of their way. Anything else is the stuff of dreams!

Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell

...you also discover the great redeeming feature of poverty: the fact that it annihilates the future. Within certain limits, it is actually true that the less money you have, the less you worry...When you only have three francs you are quite indifferent; for three francs will feed you till tomorrow, and you cannot think further than that. You are bored, but you are not afraid. You think vaguely, 'I shall be starving in a day or two - shocking, isn't it? And then the mind wonders to other topics. A bread and margarine diet does, to some extent, provide its own anodyne.

And there is another feeling that is a great consolation in poverty. I believe everyone who has been hard up has experienced it. It is a feeling of relief, almost of pleasure, at knowing yourself genuinely down and out. You have talked so often of going to the dogs – and well, here are the dogs, and you have reached them, and you can stand it. It takes off a lot of anxiety.

Boris had a queer, changeable nature. He always wished himself back in the army, but he has also been a waiter long enough to acquire the waiter’s outlook. Though he had never saved more than a few thousand francs, he took it for granted that in the end he would be able to set up his own restaurant and grow rich.

‘Oh that? We shall have to abandon it. The miserable thing only cost twenty francs. Besides, one always abandons something in a retreat. Look at Napoleon at the Beresina! He abandoned his whole army.’

The waiter’s outlook is quite different. He too is proud in a way of his skill, but his skill is chiefly in being servile. His work gives him a mentality, not of a workman, but of a snob. He lives perpetually in the sight of rich people, stands at their tables, listens to their conversations, sucks up to them with smiles and discreet little jokes. He has the pleasure of spending money by proxy. Moreover, there is always the chance that he may become rich himself, for, though most waiters die poor, they have long runs of luck occasionally. At some cafes on the Grand Boulevard there is so much money to be made that the waiters actually pay the patron for their employment. The result is that between constantly seeing money, and hoping to get it, the waiter comes to identify himself to some extent with his employers. He will take pains to serve a meal in style, because he feels that he is participating in the meal himself.

The moral is, never be sorry for a waiter. Sometimes when you sit in a restaurant, still stuffing yourself half an hour after closing time, you feel that the tired waiter at your side must surely be despising you. But he is not. He is not thinking as he looks at you, ‘One day, when I have saved enough money, I shall be able to imitate that man.’ He is ministering to a kind of pleasure he thoroughly understands and admires. And that is why waiters are seldom Socialists, have no effective trade union, and will work twelve hours a day – they work fifteen hours, seven days a week, in many cafes. They are snobs, and they find the servile nature of their work rather congenial.

But there is a week point, and it is that the job the staff are doing is not necessarily what the customer pays for. The customer pays, as he see it, for the good service; the employee is paid, as he sees it, for he boulot – meaning, as a rule, an imitation of good service. The result is that, though hotels are miracles of punctuality, they are the worse than the worst private houses in the things that matter.

Take cleanliness, for example. The dirt at Hotel X, as soon as one penetrated into the service quarters was revolting. Our cafeteria has year-old filth in all the dark corners, and the bread-bin was infested with cockroaches. Once I suggested killing these beasts to Mario. ‘Why kill the poor animals?’ he asked reproachfully. The others laughed when I wanted to wash my hands before touching the butter. Yet we were clean where we recognised cleanliness as part of the boulot. We scrubbed the tables and polished the brasswork regularly, because we had orders to do that; but we had no orders to be genuinely clean, and in any case we had not time for it. We were simply carrying out our duties; and as our first duty was punctuality, we saved time by being dirty.

In the kitchen the dirt was worse. It is not a figure of speech, it is a mere statement of fact to say that a French cook will spit in the soup— that is, if he is not going to drink it himself. He is an artist, but his art is not cleanliness. To a certain extent he is even dirty because he is an artist, for food, to look smart, needs dirty treatment. When a steak, for instance, is brought up for the head cook’s inspection, he does not handle it with a fork. He picks it up in his fingers and slaps it down, runs his thumb round the dish and licks it to taste the gravy, runs it round and licks again, then steps back and contemplates the piece of meat like an artist judging a picture, then presses it lovingly into place with his fat, pink fingers, every one of which he has licked a hundred times that morning. When he is satisfied, he takes a cloth and wipes his fingerprints from the dish, and hands it to the waiter. And the waiter, of course, dips his fingers into the gravy—his nasty, greasy fingers which he is for ever running through his brilliantined hair. Whenever one pays more than, say, ten francs for a dish of meat in Paris, one may be certain that it has been fingered in this manner. In very cheap restaurants it is different; there, the same trouble is not taken over the food, and it is just forked out of the pan and flung on to a plate, without handling. Roughly speaking, the more one pays for food, the more sweat and spittle one is obliged to eat with it.

It was the typical life of a plongeur, and it did not seem a bad life at the time. I had no sensation of poverty, for even after paying my rent and setting aside enough for tobacco and journeys and my food on Sundays, I still had four francs a day for drinks, and four francs was wealth. There was—it is hard to express it—a sort of heavy contentment, the contentment a well-fed beast might feel, in a life which had become so simple. For nothing could be simpler than the life of a plongeur. He lives in a rhythm between work and sleep, without time to think, hardly conscious of the exterior world; his Paris has shrunk to the hotel, the Metro, a few bistros and his bed. If …On his free day he lies in bed till noon, puts on a clean shirt, throws dice for drinks, and after lunch goes back to bed again. Nothing is quite real to him but the boulot, drinks and sleep; and of these sleep is the most important.

Work in the hotel taught me the true value of sleep, just as being hungry had taught me the true value of food. Sleep had ceased to be a mere physical necessity; it was something voluptuous, a debauch more than a relief.

(Charlie speaking) ‘It happened at a time when I was hard up. You know what that is like —how damnable, that a man of refinement should ever be in such a condition. My money had not come from home; I had pawned everything, and there was nothing open to me except to work, which is a thing I will not do. I was living with a girl at the time—Yvonne her name was—a great half-witted peasant girl like Azaya there, with yellow hair and fat legs. The two of us had eaten nothing in three days. Mon dieu, what sufferings! The girl used to walk up and down the room with her hands on her belly, howling like a dog that she was dying of starvation. It was terrible.

Yet if one looks closely one sees that there is no essential difference between a beggar’s livelihood and that of numberless respectable people. Beggars do not work, it is said; but, then, what is work? A navvy works by swinging a pick. An accountant works by adding up figures. A beggar works by standing out of doors in all weathers and getting varicose veins, chronic bronchitis, etc. It is a trade like any other; quite useless, of course—but, then, many reputable trades are quite useless. And as a social type a beggar compares well with scores of others. He is honest compared with the sellers of most patent medicines, high-minded compared with a Sunday newspaper proprietor, amiable compared with a hire-purchase tout—in short, a parasite, but a fairly harmless parasite. He seldom extracts more than a bare living from the community, and, what should justify him according to our ethical ideas, he pays for it over and over in suffering. I do not think there is anything about a beggar that sets him in a different class from other people, or gives most modern men the right to despise him.

Then the question arises, Why are beggars despised?—for they are despised, universally. I believe it is for the simple reason that they fail to earn a decent living. In practice nobody cares whether work is useful or useless, productive or parasitic; the sole thing demanded is that it shall be profitable. In all the modem talk about energy, efficiency, social service and the rest of it, what meaning is there except ‘Get money, get it legally, and get a lot of it’? Money has become the grand test of virtue. By this test beggars fail, and for this they are despised. If one could earn even ten pounds a week at begging, it would become a respectable profession immediately. A beggar, looked at realistically, is simply a businessman, getting his living, like other businessmen, in the way that comes to hand. He has not, more than most modem people, sold his honour; he has merely made the mistake of choosing a trade at which it is impossible to grow rich.

The English are a conscience-ridden race, with a strong sense of the sinfulness of poverty. One cannot imagine the average Englishman deliberately turning parasite, and this national character does not necessarily change because a man is thrown out of work. Indeed, if one remembers that a tramp is only an Englishman out of work, forced by law to live as a vagabond, then the tramp-monster vanishes. I am not saying, of course, that most tramps are ideal characters; I am only saying that they are ordinary human beings, and that if they are worse than other people it is the result and not the cause of their way of life.

But the important point is that a tramp’s sufferings are entirely useless. He lives a fantastically disagreeable life, and lives it to no purpose whatever. One could not, in fact, invent a more futile routine than walking from prison to prison, spending perhaps eighteen hours a day in the cell and on the road. There must be at the least several tens of thousands of tramps in England. Each day they expend innumerable foot-pounds of energy—enough to plough thousands of acres, build miles of road, put up dozens of houses—in mere, useless walking. Each day they waste between them possibly ten years of time in staring at cell walls. They cost the country at least a pound a week a man, and give nothing in return for it. They go round and round, on an endless boring game of general post, which is of no use, and is not even meant to be of any use to any person whatever. The law keeps this process going, and we have got so accustomed to it that We are not surprised. But it is very silly.

‘The China I Knew’ – A Reader’s Digest condensation from ‘My Several Worlds’ by Pearl Buck. 1956

I used to wonder why my Chinese friends, whom I knew to be merciful and considerate towards people, could be quite indifferent to suffering animals. The cause, I discovered as I grew older, lay in the permeation of Chinese thought by Buddhist theory. Part of the doctrine of the reincarnation of the human soul is that an evil human being after death becomes an animal in his next incarnation. Therefore, every animal was once a wicked human being. While the average Chinese might deny direct belief in this theory, yet the pervading belief led him to feel contempt for animals.

Still, living today with electric household appliances, I find myself nostalgic for a house where the servants are human, the while I know and hate poverty that makes human labour cheap. And yet the servants in our own Chinese home enjoyed their life, and they respected themselves and their work for us. How lonely might I have been in the evening had I not been free to sit in the servants’ court, to play with their babies and listen to the music of a country flute or a two-stringed violin!

Certainly machines are not so companionable. I went not long ago to call upon a young farmer’s wife, a neighbour of mine in Pennsylvania. I entered the kitchen and encircling it I saw monumental machines: washing machine, drier, mangle, two freezers, refrigerator, electric stove, sink. With such help her daily work was soon done, and we went into the neat living-room where there was no book, but where a television set was carrying on. She paid no heed to it and, inviting me to sit down, she took her fat baby, immaculate and well fed, on her knee and we talked until I had to leave. She said, real disappointment in her voice, “Oh, can’t you stay? I though you’d spend the afternoon. I get so bored after dinner – I haven’t a thing to do.”

I thought of Chinese farm wives who take their laundry to the pond and chatter and laugh together while they beat their garments with a wooden paddle upon a flat rock, a long tedious process, except what would they have done of an afternoon without it? And by their talk and merriment they were more amused, I do believe, than was that young neighbour of mine by the television rattling on all day long, with its unknown voices and its pictured faces.

Two worlds, and one cannot be the other, and each has its own ways and blessings, I suppose.

Years later, in American theatres, I was uncomfortable not because of what I saw but what I smelled. I had lived so long among the Chinese that like them I abhorred milk and butter and ate little meat. Therefore when I came among my own people I smelled a rank and wild odour, compound of milk and butter and beef. I remembered then how my Chinese friends had complained of the way white folk smelled, and so they did. It was only after a year or so of consuming American food, though still without milk to this day, that I was able to endure an evening among my own kind, and this is because I now smell like them.

I had a curious sense of recklessness when I stepped off the ship at Shanghai. There is something to be said for losing one’s possessions, when nothing can be done about it. I had loved my Nanking home and the little treasures it had contained. Well, that was over. Nothing was ever valuable to me again, nothing, that is, in the way of beloved objects, for I knew now that anything material can be destroyed. On the other hand, people were more than ever important and human relationships more valuable.

“The Secret Life of Trees” – Colin Tudge

Tree is not a distinct category, like ‘dog’ or ‘horse’. It is just a way of being a plant. The different kinds have much in common and is good and necessary to have some feel for what is essential. But the essences of nature will not be pinned down so easily. In the end, all definitions of nature are simply for convenience, helping us to focus on the particular aspect that we happen to be thinking about at the time. There is no phenomenon in nature – whether it’s as simple as ‘leg’ or ‘stomach’ or ‘leaf’ or more obviously conceptual like ‘gene’ or ‘species’ – that does not take on a variety of forms, and which cannot be looked at from an infinite number of angles; and each angle gives rise to its own definition. … The way we define natural things influences the way we treat them – whether we speak of wild flowers or weeds, of Mrs Tittlemouse or of vermin. But in the end nature is nature, and we must try with different degrees of feebleness, and for our own purposes, to make what sense of it we can.

Metabolism – the basic business of staying alive – is half of what living things do. The other half is to reproduce. It is not vital to reproduce in order to stay alive – indeed, reproduction involves sacrifice; reproduction, as we will see later in this book, is often the last fling: many a tree dies after one bout of it. But it is essential nonetheless. At least, all creatures that do not reproduce die out. However successfully an organism may metabolize, sooner or later time and chance will finish it off. Everything dies. Only those that reproduce endure – or at least, their offspring do. All individuals are part of lineages – offspring after offspring after offspring.

All of life’s requirements – metabolism, reproduction and the business of getting along with others - are difficult. Each creature must solve life’s problems in its own way. There is no perfect, universal life strategy. Each has its own drawbacks and advantages.

So it can pay a creature to be very small; or it can pay to be big. Each has its pros and cons. A plant this is big like a tree can stretch further up into the sky, and so capture more of the sun’s energy; and reach further down into the earth, for water and minerals. This is the upside. But it takes a long time to achieve a large size, and whether you are an oak tree or an elephant or a human being, the longer you take to develop the more likely you are to be killed before you reproduce.

… German Alexander von Humboldt who, together with the French physician and amateur botanist Aime Bonpland, travelled 10,000 kilometres in South America between 1799 and 1804, on foot and canoe. They collected 12,000 specimens of plants, including 3,000 new species, and hence doubled the number known from the western hemisphere. On their return they published the thirty volumes of Voyage aux regions equinoxiales at von Humboldt’s expense (it cost him his entire fortune), of which Bonpland contributed just one, although von Humboldt insisted that they share the authorship of the whole.

The bark of the eucalyptus is rich in oils and resins and burns quickly and fiercely. Oddly, this is an anti-fire device. The bark is shed, commonly in shreds, and builds up around the tree as litter. Other plants find it difficult to grow through the chemically rich, dark brew, and so there may be little or no undergrowth. When the bushfires rage they race quickly through the oily, resiny tinder on the ground – and a quick, hot flame is far less damaging than a cooler but slower one. The bark beneath the wisps that are shed is smooth and iron hard, difficult for the fire to take hold in.

Best known of all Lauraceae is the avocado, Persea Americana, native to Central America. It has more protein than any other fruit and is 25 per cent fat. It also has a wonderful strategy to prevent inbreeding. As with other Lauraceae, it is pollinated by insects. It has two kinds of flowers, inventively dubbed A and B: some individuals have A flowers and some have B flowers. The stigmas of A flowers are receptive to pollen only on one particular morning, while the anthers of A flowers do not release their pollen until the afternoon of the same day. In B flowers, the stigmas are receptive on one afternoon, but do not release, while pollen is not released until the following morning. So A flowers can only be pollinated by B flowers, and B flowers can only be pollinated by A flowers.

Organisms like us, which need their food ready made, are called ‘heterotrophs’. But the buck has to stop somewhere – and in most earthly ecosystems, it stops with plants. Plants make their own carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and everything else they need from raw materials – simple chemical elements, and the simplest possible chemical compounds. They obtain their energy to do this from the sun. They are ‘autotrophs’: self-feeders.

Water molecules cling tightly together. Their cohesive strength is prodigious. Were it not so, trees could not pull water from below, and could not grow so tall; but in practice the forces are such that a tree could grow to a height of three kilometres if the tensile strength of water was the only constraint on growth. Even as things are, the threads of water may sometimes break – an accident known as ‘cavitation’ - leaving a space in the vessel that a plumber would call an airlock… Given time and favourable conditions, plants can eventually fill this space again, and normal service is resumed. Otherwise, if cavitation is too great, the tissues that depend on the vessel may die.

There are many more twists as the game of chemistry unfolds. An array of plants has been shown to produce various terpenes only after insects have begun to feed on them: another economy. These terpenes discourage the invading pests from laying their eggs. But in addition they also attract the natural enemies of the pests, so that they fly in from far and wide to see the pests off: swarms of parasitic wasps or ladybirds to feast on aphids. So far such effects have been shown in maize, cotton and wild tobacco. I know of no specific examples in trees – but again it would be very surprising indeed if they were not to be found.

…when elephants in Africa feed from the mopane trees of Africa…, they take just a few leaves before moving on to the next tree. Furthermore (so it is claimed) the elephants move upwind to a new tree. Evidently the mopane increases its output of tannins as the elephants browse, so the leaves become less and less palatable. Evidently, too, they emit organic materials (…perhaps the tannins themselves) that act as pheromones, and so warn other mopanes downwind that an attack is imminent and they too should produce more tannins. Some acacias are said to behave in the same way, in response to giraffes.

“The Art of Travel” – Alain De Botton

At mid-morning on that first day, M and Is sat on deck chairs outside the beach hut. A single cloud hung shyly above the bay. M put on her headphones and began annotating Emile Durkheim’s On Suicide. I looked around me. It would have seemed to observers that I was where I lay. But ‘I’ – that is, the conscious part of my self – had in truth abandoned the physical envelope in which it dwelt in order to worry about the future, or more specifically about the issue of whether lunches would be included in the price of the room. Two hours later, seated at a corner table in the hotel restaurant with a papaya (lunch and local taxes included)…

If we are surprised by the power of one sulk to destroy the beneficial effects of an entire hotel, it is because we misunderstand what holds up our moods. We are sad at home and blame the weather and the ugliness of buildings, but on the tropical island we learn (after an argument in a raffia bungalow under an azure sky) that the state of the skies and the appearance of our dwellings can never on their own underwrite our joy nor condemn us to misery.

Journeys are the midwives of thought. Few places are more conducive to internal conversations than a moving plane, ship or train. There is an almost quaint correlation between what is in front of our eyes and the thoughts we are able to have in our heads: large thoughts at times requiring large views, new thoughts new places. Introspective reflections which are liable to stall are helped along by the flow of the landscape. The mind may be reluctant to think properly when thinking is all it is supposed to do. The task can be as paralysing as having to tell a joke or mimic an accent on demand. Thinking improves when parts of the mind are given other tasks, are charged with listening to music or following a line of trees. The music or the view distracts for a time that nervous, censorious, practical part of the mind which is inclined to shut down when it notices something difficult emerging in consciousness and which runs scared of memories, longings, introspective or original ideas and prefers instead the administrative and the impersonal.

Of all the modes of transport, the train is perhaps the best aid to thought: the views have none of the potential monotony of those on a ship or plane, they move fast enough for us not to get exasperated but slowly enough to allow us to identify objects. They offer us brief, inspiring glimpses into private domains, letting us see a woman at the precise moment when she takes a sup from her kitchen shelf in her kitchen, then carrying us to a patio where a man is sleeping and then to a park where a child is catching a ball thrown by a figure we cannot see.

Asked to explain why he has been made to suffer though he has been good, God draws Job’s attention to the mighty phenomena of nature. Do not be surprised that things have not gone your way: the universe is greater than you. Do not be surprised that you do not understand why they have not gone your way: for you cannot fathom the logic of the universe. Accept what is bigger than you and you do not understand. The world may appear illogical to Job, but it does not follow that is illogical per se. Our lives are not the measure of all things: consider sublime places for a reminder of human insignificance and frailty.

clip_image002

clip_image004

clip_image006

clip_image008