Three Essays

On Wall Building

“…He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’

Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder

If I could put a notion in his head:

‘Why do they make good neighbors?  Isn’t it

Where there are cows?  But here there are no cows.

Before I built a wall I’d ask to know

What I was walling in or walling out,

And to whom I was like to give offense.

Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,

That wants it down.’  I could say ‘Elves’ to him,

But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather

He said it for himself.” – Robert Frost, Mending Wall

Sometimes people try to talk us into things we suspect don’t make sense. They appeal to our fears as well as our best visions of ourselves. Little by little they try to persuade us to agree with them. Of course, we want to be good citizens, to be patriotic, to stand together against our enemies. Of course, we want to stand our ground against crime, to prevent bad people from “infesting” our country. Of course, we need a wall to keep intruders from ruining everything we’ve worked so hard to build. So, the arguments flow. But are they true? Are they rational? Are they even fair?

There are only two reasons to build a wall: To keep someone or something in, or to keep someone or something out. The first is to construct a prison, the second is to erect a fortress. Yet, sometimes walls are necessary. It wouldn’t do to have persons who have proven to be harmful to others on the loose, ready and able to do harm again. John Stuart Mill proposed that the main reason we should remove a person’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. So, prison walls are to a certain extent unavoidable.

And sometimes walls are necessary for defense, although in this era of bunker-busting bombs, nuclear missiles, and chemical-biological warfare, walled cities are looking more and more anachronistic. Simply put, we can’t keep out all dangers by building walls. Some of the greatest threats to any nation are internal. Perhaps proposals for walls mask a far greater threat from those who propose to build them. The reflexive platitude that “Good fences make good neighbors” needs to be questioned. Do they? Exactly how? And at what cost?

Many people have allowed themselves to be led by fear, by the assertion that all a country needs to do is build walls and the problem (however it may be defined) will be solved. Fears will then subside. Danger will be then averted. Yet, the real problems will remain – fear, prejudice, distrust, injustice, hatred, and violence. Will a physical wall “wall out” fear and hatred? Or is it merely an outward manifestation of what the wall-builders have hidden inside?

We fear those we don’t know or don’t understand. How will a wall dispel our ignorance? I’m not sure. I lock my doors to keep opportunists out, with the full understanding my locks will not deter a determined criminal. I understand it’s possible to prevent a person with a shred of honesty or decency from breaking in, but not the sociopath who has lost touch with what most people value. I suppose I fear him and I’m grateful for every day he does not violate the sanctity of my home. In a sense, no lock is strong enough and no wall is high enough to dispel these fears. Maybe only God can do that. It seems to me the “Fear not” we read in the Bible does not mean buying a stronger lock or building a higher wall but mastering your fear before it leads you to do terrible things to others.

I understand every country needs good borders, to keep track of who is entering or leaving. I also understand very few immigrants are rapists, murderers, or drug dealers. I also understand nearly half of the persons living in my country without proper documentation did not sneak in but simply overstayed their visas. I also understand there is a clear difference between an asylum-seeking refugee and a criminal. I’m not sure I want to “wall out” people who are living in fear for their lives. In that case, a wall might be their death sentence as surely as my locked doors might be a death sentence for a person trying to escape a criminal attack in my front yard.

A rational way to proceed might be to ask, “how much it will cost for each person kept out by a wall?” Keeping in mind determined individuals (criminal or not) will still be able to get in, and some will still game the system, I suspect the cost-benefit ratio of most walls isn’t good. It might be better to spend the same amount of money addressing the injustice and violence that forces people to become refugees, or the economic inequities that motivate them to leave the homes they love.

If a great country feels compelled to build massive walls, what are the people in that country saying? Are they so fearful a wall seems the only way to help them feel secure? Are they panicking like an elephant afraid of a mouse? Have they rejected every other rational course of action in favor of a simple one-step solution to a complex problem? Are they willing to wall out cows when there are no cows, or wall out the many who might make a positive contribution along with the few who might do harm?

I have many more questions than answers. Like Robert Frost, I feel compelled to ask them rather than jump on the bandwagon and let rationality and compassion slip away. There must be rational alternatives to explore before resorting to building walls. There must be a way to make sure people matter more than bricks, and concrete, and the anxieties of old men.

Thoughts on Utopia

When I was a boy, I played with toy knights and listened to stories about Medieval times. The legends of King Arthur and Robin Hood were my favorites. I learned about chivalry, honor, and valor. I learned a country needs good leaders if it wants to be great. I learned people could be good and noble, even if the nobility was not. I also learned sooner or later the responsibility for success or failure would rest on those in the highest offices. In the middle ages, officials wore a “chain of office,” a medallion or insignia on a chain around their necks. The chain was there to remind them of two things: 1. who they served, and 2. the higher the office, the heavier the chain, therefore the greater responsibility. Oaths were taken, traditions were followed, and honor was bestowed on the brave, the wise, and the generous. The strong were expected to defend the weak, and true nobility was found in doing one’s duty, even if other desires had to be sacrificed. Doing the right thing was important to a knight – rescuing a damsel in distress, defending one’s countrymen from attack, or slaying real or metaphorical dragons. Of course, the stories I heard were romanticized. Reality is always more complex than stories of glory and honor, of idealized knights and wise, benevolent kings. Yet, these stories contained an element of truth.

As in Biblical accounts, the person who thought he was least capable most often had leadership thrust upon him. Moses considered himself “slow of speech” and unworthy to be the leader of Israel. Arthur, like David, was portrayed as a boy who won honor by completing an impossible task and subsequently becoming king, a position he did not seek. Robin Hood reluctantly took on the role of defender of the weak. Solomon ardently prayed for wisdom to lead his people. Time and time again, the most unprepared were called upon to do the right thing and lead. And, at their best, they led with honor and humility. One of the lessons of history has been that the more entitled and power-hungry the leader, the worse the outcome for his people, and often for him as well. In the end, Mussolini and Hitler did not fare well. Maybe they should have learned the lessons of valiant knights and noble leaders. Wear the chain of office well. Put the interests of your people – your country – before your own. The office is not for personal pleasure, profit, or power, but to see to it everyone benefits. Leadership is indeed an awesome and terrifying responsibility – not for those who are “in it for themselves.”

We all dream of utopia, of an ideal state where peace and harmony overcome conflict and strife. Many reasons have been given why such an ideal is impossible. The nature of man. Greed. The inevitability of war. Nationalism. Those “other” people – Jews, Blacks, Homosexuals, Muslims, Hispanics, Immigrants, the Underclass, and so on. Hitler and others have tried to exterminate the cause of society’s troubles as they saw it and convinced their followers to see it. “Others” have been singled out throughout history. Genocide, enslavement, caste systems – all these are monuments to the notion that if not for “those people,” the rest could have utopia.

A standing joke among teachers is, “teaching would be easy if not for the students and their parents.” Running a business would be easy, if not for the customers and workers. Being a doctor would be easy if not for the patients. Leading a nation would be easy if not for the citizens. All of these do irrational and unpredictable things and in short throw a monkey wrench in even the most well-designed system. Having been involved in writing college policies, I can attest 98% of the rules are written to prevent 2% of the students from trying to circumvent the rules. All this is to say working with real people is messy and difficult, but not impossible. Good policies are helpful. Fair rule sets are as well. Yet, although good policies, fair rules, and wise leadership can benefit everyone, these don’t guarantee utopia.

There is a famous episode of “The Twilight Zone” in which the main character wishes everybody would be “like him.” The next morning, he notices everyone he meets looks like him, talks like him, and acts like him. Soon, he is on the verge of insanity. Be careful what you wish for. Maybe our definition of utopia is the problem. Do we mean a sort of paradise on earth where everybody gets along, where there is no difference of opinion, where there is never any conflict, where everyone shares the same beliefs and works towards the same goals? Even if this is possible, is it desirable? Must we have a Pax Romana to live in utopia, or is this assumption the reason so many have been killed in war and genocide? If utopia means acknowledging and accepting diversity in thoughts and beliefs – not in a PC sort of way, but in a way that honors traditions and encourages the ideal of “e pluribus Unum,” this might be a more productive definition. Certainly, with the second definition we might be less insistent that “others” must be eliminated in order to have a “more perfect union.”

In an article about Brexit, a British columnist who calls himself, “Fleet Street Fox,” wrote, “Who are you going to blame for the lack of a utopia, when the people you’ve always blamed are not there to blame anymore?” I found this to be a striking and insightful question. So much of the time those who call themselves “leaders” are quick to blame others for their lack of success. CEO’s “downsize” thousands under the premise that the business must be “lean and mean” and somehow the “dead wood” is preventing greatness. Colleges attempt to be more “selective” to achieve “academic excellence.” Nations have conducted “purges” of those thought to be critical of or disloyal to those in power. As I write this, Buddhists in Myanmar are trying to eliminate Rohingya Muslims. Thousands have died. This tragedy is only one of several ongoing or potential tragedies around the world. The EU and the US are faced with a refugee crisis, which may only get worse as climate change proceeds to teach us all many hard lessons.

Indeed, who are we going to blame when the “others” who somehow caused all our problems “are not there to blame anymore?” We are in a crisis, not of undesirable people, but of wise and honorable leadership. Instead of statesmanship – the noble attempt to defuse tensions and show a better way forward – we have leaders who pander to prejudices and fears. In the name of sovereignty, or national interest, or making their countries great again, we have leaders who encourage their followers to blame and hate the “others” as opposed to working to become better themselves. We can’t achieve utopia, by any definition, if we continue to appeal to the demons in our nature – demons who naturally end up demonizing anyone who doesn’t agree with us. Only our better angels can help us see reason. Lincoln famously asked, “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?” It is easy to blame others, to fear them out of a lack of knowledge, much less understanding, to hate them for ruining what could be a utopia if not for them, to lash out in violence as retribution for the “evil” they have somehow caused. But, to see ourselves as lacking wisdom, lacking honor, lacking the courage or character to find a better way, is difficult and painful. If there is anyone “to blame for the lack of a utopia” it is those who cannot or will not accept the responsibility, the weight, of their office, which includes any favorable position they might occupy. G.K. Chesterton reportedly answered the question, “What is wrong with the world?” with only two words: “I am.” This is also a possible answer to what is right with the world. The sooner we work on ourselves rather than blaming others for our problems, the closer we will be to utopia.

Of Milk Bottles and Men: A Perspective on Global Warming

“The way to love anything is to realize that it might be lost.” – GK Chesterton

When I was in grade school, we had milk delivered to our house in glass bottles. A milkman dropped off full bottles of milk each week and picked up the empty bottles. My mother kept the milk box for the rest of her life. We eventually sold it in a yard sale. It was a pretty good system. Bottles were re-used or replaced if damaged, and families who could afford it had fresh milk every week.

At some point, we stopped getting milk delivered. For most people the service ended by the 1970’s with the dominance of super markets and disposable plastic-coated paper containers. Later, polypropylene became the standard. The combination of convenience, economy, sanitary packaging, and the attraction of stores where you can get anything, including fresh milk, at any time, ended the era of the milkman, as well as the old joke about the milkman being the real father of certain troublesome children. Be that as it may, we have developed a marvelous one-way distribution process for milk and just about everything else: Manufacturer (farm) to distributor (bottler) to retail store to car to home to landfill. Many people try to recycle cans, plastic, paper, or even bottles, but the effect is minimal given the sheer magnitude of the problem.

For the past few decades we have seen the rise of supermarket chains, shopping malls, big-box stores, and shopping clubs, not to mention the expansion of super highways and suburbs. From the 1960’s onward people bought into the ideal of the two-car family, and the easy availability of all sorts of commodities (such as oranges and strawberries) all year.

Most of us haven’t questioned whether these trends are sustainable. 45 years ago, in college engineering classes we discussed the problem of “resource recovery.” While some progress has been made, many people prefer the convenient and cheap to anything even resembling the opposite. So, landfills are filling, and the oceans are becoming fouled with human detritus.

Yet, change is upon us. Some companies, like FedEx, are already investing in renewable energy sources to make their operations more cost-effective as fossil fuel prices rise. Amazon and many other companies have disrupted at least part of the supply chain. I now receive a monthly supply of razor blades in the mail, and more people are shopping on-line for better prices and home delivery. Apparently, one can make more money delivering goods on carefully-chosen routes than by having millions of people drive randomly to the store. Soon drones may be delivering products directly to our front doors. Home delivery also solves inventory problems as well. Why stock and finance hundreds of retail stores when a few dozen will do?

There remains the problem of sustainability. Even though we are turning the clock back to the milkman in some ways, packaging and many disposable products still take a one-way trip. And product returns are putting another burden on the system. Is it cheaper to send a pair of pants back and forth or just try them on at a store? How can we make transportation as efficient as possible to conserve diminishing resources? Will we be able to finance the changes we will be forced to make? And, in the long run, can we continue to offer so many choices for consumers? I don’t have the answers to questions like these.

We are faced with the effects of global warming. Many people think humans have nothing to do with causing global warming, however the speed of climate change is unprecedented and has accelerated in the Anthropocene Era. Growing seasons are lengthening, animal migration patterns and plant growing zones are changing, glaciers are melting, coral reefs are dying, average ocean temperatures are rising, ocean levels are rising (enough to threaten island nations), animal habitats and species are under stress, extinction rates are rising, hot areas are becoming uninhabitable, and polar vortex effects as well as more intense storms are evidence that something is happening. Global warming poses an existential threat to our descendants, even if humans aren’t “causing” it.

But it is unlikely we have nothing to do with global warming. Humans have had a major impact on earth’s environment for millennia. Human activity saw to it the Fertile Crescent isn’t so fertile any more. Megafauna went extinct after humans inhabited the Australian continent. Mayan civilization fell after humans depleted natural resources. In the 1930’s, the Dustbowl was caused by inappropriate farming methods. In 1969, the Cuyahoga river burned due to human pollution. In the 60’s and 70’s it was hard to see Pittsburgh and Los Angeles because of human smoke and smog. For decades humans tested atomic bombs around the world; the full effect of these tests has yet to be determined. In the 80’s the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl melted down, rendering the area unfit for human habitation. These are only a few examples.

None of these examples shows we are evil or depraved, just that sometimes we are either ignorant or too focused on short-term gain to take care of precious resources for the long-term. Humans have hunted many animals to extinction or near extinction. Humans shot bison from the top of trains in the 19th century: this was not necessarily evil, but arrogant or ignorant at best. However, it seems to me the more we know, the more able we are to accept responsibility and become better stewards of what we have inherited – either from God or our ancestors, depending on how one sees it.

Is it likely humans have contributed to global warming? I think so. And it is likely human activity is a major factor. Even if we are only partially responsible, we could become part of a “tipping point” effect. Our contribution might be the preventable part that nudges the earth into a climate pattern that could threaten our existence along with any animals bigger than a bread box. On the other hand, US rivers haven’t burned in a long time, and currently one can see LA and Pittsburgh. We humans do have the capacity to clean up our own messes, if we put our minds to it.

Now, some insist God will not let us destroy the planet he gave us. They say He will miraculously save the Earth if it comes to that. So, they assert we should not be too concerned with global warming because the Earth has warmed and cooled before. Yet, God appointed us to be “good stewards” of the Earth. The idea of having “dominion” carries with it an element of responsibility, an obligation to be caretakers, not just takers, exploiters, or just plain spoilers. What right do we have to assume everything is ours to be used as we wish until the supply runs out?

Architect and thinker, Buckminster Fuller, once likened the people on the Earth to a chick in an egg. For a time, we can live on resources that are easy to get inside our egg – the “low-hanging fruit” of legend and fable. Eventually, we will need to break out of our shell and be able to use the resources we find there, as efficiently as possible, and even develop resources we once thought didn’t exist. We are already coming to the end of “easy” resources, and we are doing a pretty good job of improving our technology to the point where we can extract more difficult supplies. The question is, will humans be ready when the Earth no longer has easy resources, or even hard-to-find resources? Will we die when our egg can no longer sustain us, or will we be able to harness the wind, the sea, the atom, and the sun?

It’s clear to me we must become more efficient. We must invent a more sustainable economy. We must ask hard questions about our use and misuse of resources. We must become wiser. Our species has been called, homo sapiens – wise men. Sometimes we behave like wise guys, with allegiances to our tribes rather than all of humanity. Sometimes we have been anything but wise – ignorant, selfish, exploitive, and warlike. But I still believe wise men can solve the problems they face – if they can face them together.

The time of the milkman was only a tiny part of our search. Milk bottles showed we can re-use some things to good advantage. Now, some of us are learning to re-use rockets. Some smart researchers are learning how to sequester carbon. Others are working on more efficient solar cells and batteries. Others are taking a hard look at our systems of transportation and housing. We are on the brink of breaking out of our shell. The only thing that might end us is the political bickering and fighting all too common to people who like to see the world in terms of extremes. These are not wise people. Wise people know we must not test the Lord our God (or abuse mother nature). The consequences of complacency, greed, and misplaced anger are too terrible to contemplate. In short, the shell will break, and we won’t be ready. Many may die. But if wise people are willing to tolerate some inconvenience, bear with the disruption of change, and help seek a better path to the future, there is hope.