The Problem With ‘Well-Meaning Men’: How the Collective Socialization of Manhood Results in The Objectification of Women

As conversations about gender equity and the objectification of women become more frequent and publicized, it is clear that taking steps toward equality—even general safety for women—will require work on the part of many entities: business leaders, politicians, journalists … and especially “well-meaning men.” In Breaking out of the Man Box (Skyhorse Publishing, 2016), Tony Porter identifies the well-meaning man as someone who thinks he supports and uplifts women but, in actuality, perpetuates the concept that women are useful solely as objects for male entertainment or pleasure. These men, as powerhouses in a male-dominated society, have a responsibility to call their fellow men to action, to begin to create a society in which women are valued for infinitely more qualities than their ability to satisfy the opposite gender. The fight for gender equality is one of the most significant struggles in the world today, and Tony Porter’s work to enlist men is an absolutely fundamental component. The following excerpt is from the chapter “Property and Sexual Objects.” Watch a clip of Tony Porter speaking at Bioneers 2016 at the end of this article.

In our male-dominated society, objectification of women is commonplace. Breaking down and analyzing objectification and the idea of women as property explains how men come to view women as being of less value. These ideas come from the man box where our socialization leads us to believe that the primary purpose of women (objects) is to support, serve, comfort, satisfy, and entertain men. We often place more value on a woman with more desirable physical features than we do on a woman with high-quality, intangible characteristics.

We should think critically about how we look at women and also how we use them to relax, relieve stress, and entertain ourselves as if they are commodities. Women have more to offer, despite what we have been trained to think and the constant messages we receive from pop culture and other social cues. Whether in the music and entertainment industry, corporate America, communities of faith, or on the street corner, women are treated by men as objects or mere body parts. This has become widely accepted and embraced by mainstream society. For instance, magazines, music videos, advertisements, and commercials exploit women and their bodies. Those images we see on a daily basis condition us to see body parts instead of human beings with opinions, emotions, thoughts, and ideas. Also, take a look at fashion trends for women. Mini-skirts, low-rise jeans, thongs (that show), push-up bras, halter tops, tight-fitting clothing, etc. are all meant to bring more attention to women’s body parts. Ironically, you can often find replicas in children’s clothing stores as well. In some of these stores you can purchase pants for a two-year-old girl with sayings like “cutie pie” or “honey” embroidered across the buttocks. Here we have clothing, supposedly suitable for an adult woman, made for a child. This goes to show how early body parts become the focal point on the body of a female. Also, keep in mind that the driving force behind many of these companies is a man, most likely a well-meaning man.

It is my belief that, like many other things in the United States, the concept of what is considered physically attractive originated with white men. There is a tremendous pressure on women to conform to this definition, as they assess themselves and try to adjust accordingly. At one time, a slender, whiteskinned woman with blonde hair, blue eyes, who was tall (but not too tall), and had medium-sized buttocks and breasts was regarded as beautiful. While today there are many variations of physical attractiveness for women, we still lean in that direction from time to time.

Cosmetic surgeons, makeup artists, and cosmetologists are employed to improve a woman’s outward appearance, so that she can compete with other women and meet the standard for attractiveness and appeal to men. On occasion, women have disagreed with me on this point by expressing that they do not visit the salon or wear makeup for men, but instead they do it for themselves. I most certainly respect their views. However, many other women have stated the opposite. They tell me, after contemplation, that they do it to please men.

Fortunately, society has evolved to some degree, as many of the norms established by men with reference to beauty are now more broad and inclusive—with a bold and energetic movement within the LGBT and gender-nonconforming communities adding to the inclusiveness. But what has not changed is the popularity reserved for women who conform.

Think about that woman who is rather conservative; she wears loose-fitting clothes so that you cannot see the shape of her body, does not show any cleavage or skin, chooses not to wear makeup, and keeps her hair in a modest style. Many men would call her plain and probably would not give her much attention. In fact, well-meaning men around the country have told me that they would likely isolate and make her invisible. Not because they want to be rude or mean but because she does not hold their attention.

Perhaps the conservative woman who plays down her sexuality feels liberated. Yet, there is a price for this freedom. Success in dating or meeting a husband or partner, and even securing a job, may be a challenge given the overwhelming investment in the objectification of women. The collective socialization of manhood teaches men, good and abusive, to consider a woman’s body parts before her humanity.

I can recall a time while living in upstate New York. In one corner of the yard, I would store some items that I was not quite ready to get rid of yet. In the pile were things like an old 14-foot Jon boat, lumber, bricks, and other junk. I could always count on Kendell to end up playing in that pile, having no interest in the open space that was much safer for him. The problem for my son then was his tendency to fall. Thus, he had scarred up knees and elbows. I used to tease him by blaming his clumsiness on the fact that his body was so slim, but his head was so big. I would tell him, “Kendell, you live on the ground.” We would both laugh about it. His scars really didn’t seem to bother either of us much. In fact, the man box teaches that men and scars are actually a good thing. Scars and wounds would mark Kendell as a warrior, brave and courageous, a real man. Conversely, the thought of my daughter having permanent scars scared me to death.

My daughter Jade followed Kendell around much of the time, as younger siblings do. But I was constantly telling her to stop mimicking Kendell because I did not want her to fall, hurt herself, or get scratched up like her brother. I remember the day I actually noticed that Jade was catching up to Kendell with the number of marks on her arms and legs. Despite all of my knowledge around sexism and objectification, my immediate thoughts had to do with her as a young woman and how unattractive she would be with those scarred up legs. I had broken my own daughter down into body parts, thinking of her appeal to men and how I should protect her from decreasing her chance to be considered attractive. This shows us how our male socialization is very deep-rooted, a challenge to undo even for men who are conscious of it. As it turns out, Jade has become a skilled softball player; she still loves to play in the dirt, slide into bases, and dive for balls. I love it.

While sitting in church one Sunday morning, Kendell started talking to some girls in the pew behind us. At first, there was nothing alarming about the situation since he was friendly with most of the kids in the church. But, what gave me cause for concern was the look in his eyes and the weird smile on his face as he focused on one particular girl. It took me a while to figure it out. I remembered hearing Jade teasing him just the other day, chanting, “Kendell likes Beatrice. Kendell likes Beatrice,” over and over again. It dawned on me, the day had come and it was unfolding right before my eyes. My son had crossed over from thinking girls were gross to being in awe and all sheepish around them. My wife Tammy and I noticed the change in Kendell’s behavior at the same time and she urged me to have “the talk” with Kendell. I said to her, “What talk, the boy is six years old.”

Of course, there is nothing wrong with boys liking girls, or girls liking boys, but what happens next is what scared me the most. Kendell was only six at that time, but my brain went into fast forward mode because I knew that the man box would soon be in full effect. He could go from having that innocent, boyish crush at six years old, fast forward ten years and he’s now sixteen years old. He’s standing in the school cafeteria with a bunch of his friends, when a new girl to the school, whom he hasn’t met, walks by the group. He then says to his friends things like, “I want to hit that,” “I want a piece of that,” or “Man, I’d like to tear that (expletive) up.”

Now I am and have always been very thoughtful about how I explain things to Kendell. I spend a great deal of time explaining and discussing with him the issues associated with manhood. But nevertheless with all that being said he is still influenced by other men and boys around him as well. Although I am a good father and I try to teach Kendell all the right things, over the years and still today I leave him to the supervision of other men in different capacities every day, from teachers to coaches, youth ministers, etc. Let’s face it, he also has a group of friends who all appear to be nice young men but have also been influenced by men.

When working with boys and young men I regularly inform them that most of what they know about being a man they learned from me, that I represent the generation of men that has come before them. That their foundation in what it means to be a man they have learned from us. While they may put a twenty-first-century spin on things, what they know about being a man, I taught them. And the truth of the matter is while I have taught them some wonderful things about being a man, there are some aspects of manhood that we have to rethink.

Well-meaning men teach boys and young men how to think, act, behave, and also how to treat women. I cannot shield Kendell from all those messages, which is why men should be more cognizant of what they say and do around young people. Our young men are watching and picking up man box messages along the way, whether it is in the schoolyard, classroom, basketball court, or other common places. Teachers, coaches, church members, Cub Scout leaders, uncles, men from the neighborhood, and others need to be socially responsible and realize the influence they have on the development of boys and young men in reference to how they view women, ourselves, and life in general.

Fresh Meat

I am passionate about my work for many reasons and one is my hope that the world will be a better place for my youngest daughter, Jade. She is a young, bright, energetic, athletic teenager. I advise men all the time to envision the world they would want to see for their daughters and other girls that they love and care about. It’s an interesting thought for most men to process. I usually follow that statement with a question: In that world, how do you want to see men acting and behaving? The immediate response from men is “respectful.” As they think about the question more I began to get responses such as: caring, nice, treat them equal, and so on. It is then that I say to the men, “Our responses to this question speak to the areas where we as men know we are falling short and could be doing much better.”

Working with colleges and universities around the country, somewhere along the line, I began to hear the term “fresh meat.” It took me back to my high school and college days, as well as back to the neighborhood when a new girl would move in. This definitely applied to first-year female students entering the college. So now I’m working with young men in college and I’m hearing the term “fresh meat.” I began the process of having critical conversations with young men from all levels of sports—youth league to professional—and all ages, from high school, college, and beyond.

When I asked these young men to deconstruct the term “fresh meat,” the responses ranged from “new,” “vulnerable,” or “pure” to “untouched” in the virgin sense of the word. They even said, “She may not be a virgin, but at least no one here has hit it yet.” I would also get responses such as “sexual object” or “something to be consumed and conquered.”

Then I asked these very same young men to fast forward twenty-five years and their daughters are sitting in this same room and we are having a conversation about “fresh meat.” This question usually promotes silence in the room. The young men who were chuckling just a minute earlier and having lively, sidebar conversations become silent. You can hear a pin drop. These young men, in this moment, transition mentally from young college men to fathers, and they immediately begin to process and view this issue differently.

The term “fresh meat” takes on a different meaning to them. Why? Well, for one, this might be the first time these young men had a group conversation challenging this aspect of the collective socialization of manhood, truly looking into the future and the world they would want to see for their daughters—and whether or not they are helping to create that world. As men we have been on remote control. Just doing things the way they have always been done without increasing our social conscience or critical thinking. So thinking of a woman in dehumanizing ways would not trigger an adverse reaction. But make that woman their daughter and the reaction increases one hundred fold immediately.

This is why men have to start peeling back the layers of the man box and think more critically. It’s only after men consider their own daughters on the receiving end of a term like “fresh meat” that our views, comments, and responses change. Then, none of the “new,” “pure,” or other dehumanizing adjectives are used. Suddenly, the previous responses don’t sound like they are describing a human being . . . because none of the previous responses are what we would want for our daughters.

The sad reality is that we as men quickly become aware that our socialization does not teach our sons and other boys to look out for women against male predators on college campuses. We become acutely aware that she is on her own. We as a result attempt to arm her with all of our knowledge of young men’s behavior, their slick and inappropriate moves, the way they may attempt to manipulate her, and so on. Due to the way we have been socialized as men, none of us can depend on any other man to intervene, and to do the righteous thing when it comes to our daughters. It’s a sad reality for us to process as men when thinking of our daughters. The truth of the matter is that women have been well aware of this reality and living with it all along.

My second-oldest daughter, Michelle (now grown up), is a graduate of Fordham University in the Bronx. Some years ago, a female colleague of mine used Michelle as an example when trying to get me to understand a point when I was in denial about my own sexism. We were discussing the objectification of women when I stated, “I don’t stare at women. I just take a little peep every now and then.” You know how sometimes you are about to say something that you know is stupid, but you can’t pull it back in time. It’s like your mouth is moving just a little faster than your brain; as the words are coming out of your mouth, you’re thinking, Stop! No! Don’t say that! Yet, your mouth is doing its own thing. Well, this was one of those moments. My colleague looked at me with disgust and then started to break it down for me. She called it, “A Day in the Life of Michelle.”

Michelle used to commute by bus and train from the Bronx to Manhattan each morning for school and work. As a working, first-year college student, her time was split between the predominantly male real estate company where she was employed and the college campus. Given Michelle’s busy schedule and commute—her time on the train, walk from the train to the office and then back, time at work, and the classes she took on campus—my colleague had me consider the number of men Michelle encountered on a daily basis. Based on her experienced estimation, my colleague believed that approximately 20 to 25 percent of the men did what I claimed to do, which was “just take a peep.” Other reactions to Michelle would run the gamut over the course of a day. The men would go from just looking and smiling to staring and undressing her with their eyes. Or, some factions of men would say “hello” while others would say “hey baby.” Then, there was the more inappropriate group of men who would actually shout out a sexually explicit comment. My colleague also gave me a parting point to ponder at the end of our conversation. She said, “ . . . and you know, Tony, most of the men who objectify Michelle are those we define as well-meaning men, and they are probably closer to your age than hers.” Putting my own daughter in that space definitely intensified my perspective.

For the most part, the objectification of women is a collective practice of men. We have to take a good, long look at how we have been socialized to treat women as objects. An object is a thing, not a person. Moreover, adding devaluation and thinking of women as property is a lethal combination, which creates a foundation from which violence against women and girls is built on. Regrettably, it’s not only my daughter who experiences this reality; it’s the daughters, wives, mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers, partners, and other beloved women in the lives of well-meaning men. Try asking a woman you know about her day-to-day experience with men and objectification. Men may be surprised about what they will hear; however, men should also take into account how they are possibly doing the same things to other woman. I remember asking a woman friend, “Why don’t women talk more about the things that random men do and say?” Her response was, “Men can’t handle it.” When I really think about her answer, she is probably right. Just imagine your wife, girlfriend, or partner coming home from work; you are relaxing, watching a baseball game and she tells you about some guy down the block who was staring at her buttocks. So you get up, turn off the game, and go outside to deal with this guy. After all, he is looking at your woman. Let’s say you get into a little scuffle, win, and go back into the house feeling proud of yourself for defending your wife’s honor. Then, the next day she comes home and tells you the same thing. Again, you put down the remote and go outside to deal with the situation. You win again, but this time you limp home. By the time the third day rolls around, most men would be praying that their wives, girlfriends, or partners don’t tell them about anything else because of what they would be compelled to do. Women know this and they protect us from each other. They understand that male bravado of the man box would not allow for a peaceful resolution in most cases. Women keep many of these experiences to themselves for the safety of their partners, and in many cases to protect his notions of manhood. Furthermore, women have told me that if they were going to tell us about all of their experiences in reference to men and objectification, some of our best friends would be included.

When my son Kendell was twelve years old he was cutting the grass in front of the house. I was on my way home, about ten minutes from the house, when I got a phone call from him asking if he could go down the hill to Sharon’s house, a girl from his school. Kendell explained that a bunch of kids from his school were at Sharon’s house and he wanted to go down and hang out. I told him that he could go but he had to finish cutting the grass first; he agreed.

As I mentioned, I was only ten minutes away from the house when he called, so as I pulled into the driveway I saw Kendell standing at the lawnmower with about six of his friends. I looked at him and he looked at me.

“What’s up?” I asked him.

He said to me, “I don’t know Dad, they just came up the hill.”

“You know you’re cutting this grass.”

“I know Dad, I got it, cool out.”

I said to him, “I’m gonna cool out alright, you better get this grass cut.”

I then waved to all the kids and went inside the house.

What I have not mentioned is that all six of his friends were girls. I’m going to pause in sharing this story and let that sink in: Yes, all of Kendell’s friends were girls. So men, what do you think, when a man comes home and he sees his son hanging out with six girls, what goes through a man’s mind? What are some of the questions that a man has? Having had this conversation with thousands of men I am going to share some of their thoughts with you. My expectation is that at least some of you are having the same thoughts right now that they did.

First thought that comes to many men’s mind is “thumbs up” or “that’s my boy.” They admit that seeing their son with six girls makes them proud. For many men it shows that their son has sexual interest in girls and that girls like him, and that is a win-win situation.

Other men share that it might bring up concerns. When questioned about what concern it may bring up men admit that it may lead to questions about their son’s sexual identity. The question is usually simply stated as, “Is he gay?” They would proceed to ask their son, “What are you doing with all those girls?” or questions like, “Which one do you like?” What men have told me is that as long as he likes one of the girls, all is well. I then ask well what if he doesn’t like any of them and by chance he is not gay, what then? That question has the possibility of stumping men. They would ask their sons, “Which one do you like?” and their son would state, “I don’t like any of them, Dad, they’re just my friends.”

And the father would say, “Well what do you do with them?” and the son would respond, “We just hang out, Dad, they’re my friends.”

Dad would say, “Yeah, I get that but what do you do? What do you talk about?”

The message that our sons and other boys are getting from far too many men, actually good men, is that outside of sexual conquest boys should have limited interest in girls. The message to our boys was and continues to be today that you can have a girl or two as your friend, but more than that and your manhood as we define it is in question. When it comes to the man box, I believe that homophobia is the glue that keeps it together. We teach our sons and other boys to define manhood by distancing themselves from the experiences of women and girls; in order to effectively distance oneself you have to also truly develop a lack of interest. We then allow for limited interest, and that usually is reserved for sexual conquest. While I am sure there are various degrees of disagreement with me on this point, there is one reality to all of this that’s difficult to challenge. You take the average eighteen-year-old young man, good kid and all. You then take the average eighteen-year-old young woman, and his interest in her lessens when we take sexual conquest off the table. There are no absolutes to anything I’m saying in this book and that relates to this issue as well. I am not saying all eighteen-year-old boys; I’m not saying your son. What I am saying is that, far too often, this is the reality.

This excerpt has been reprinted with permission from Breaking out of the Man Box by Tony Porter, published by Skyhorse Publishing, 2016.

Watch a video of Tony Porter speaking about “Breaking the Male Code” at Bioneers 2016 below, or listen to our podcast.

See more from our Everywoman’s Leadership Program >>

Being Here Is Enough: Carl Safina on Animal Cognition and a Deserved Existence

Carl Safina, esteemed ecologist and author, has—through his writing and speaking—brought the wonders of the natural world into our lives and homes. A long-time voice and advocate for ocean preservation, Safina’s most recent published work, Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel (read an excerpt from the book), sheds light upon animal cognition and what researchers can discern about animal feelings. Bioneers spoke with Safina about intelligence in nature, his next project, and hope.


Bioneers: You write about animal feelings and intelligence in nature, along with our perhaps flawed insistence—as humans—upon using ourselves as a measuring stick by which to determine these qualities among other life. Some would argue that, even if other living beings think and feel, humans are more deserving of a dignified existence because of their seemingly superior abilities. What do you think about that?

Carl Safina: It’s always a losing proposition to insist that you are better than all others. This is what racism is about. Attitudes of human “supremacy” toward the whole living world have similar results to human racism toward humans: It causes suffering, and it causes death. It makes us uglier, and it makes the world uglier. It despises much that is beautiful, while missing much that is beautiful. Other forms of life are part of why we are here. Their claim in the world is generally equivalent to ours: They are here; that’s usually enough. I would except things like smallpox on the basis of the widespread pain and suffering that organism causes. We “deserve” to be here not because we are a boon to other living things (we are mostly a highly destructive force) and not because we are good stewards (we are the only species that causes global problems, and we have not demonstrated an ability to fix the problems we cause). We deserve to be here as a species because we are here, and that’s enough. Same with every species. As individuals we are deemed to have rights unless we cause grave harm; then we might be imprisoned, even executed. If we applied that to all species, our species would draw a life sentence because we are destroying ecosystems, destabilizing the planet’s heat balance and the ocean’s chemistry, and driving the sixth major extinction. Human activities now tend to be incompatible with life on planet Earth, with so many of us affecting so much in so many places.

B: Can you remember an experience in your life that sparked your interest in animal cognition?

CS: Here’s one of many: I was seven years old when my father and I fixed up a small shed in our Brooklyn yard and got some homing pigeons. Watching how they built nests in their cubbyholes, seeing them courting, arguing, caring for their babies, flying off and faithfully returning, how they needed food, water, a home, and one another, I realized that they lived in their apartments just as we lived in ours. Just like us, but in a different way. Over my lifetime, living with, studying, and working with many other animals in their world and ours has only broadened and deepened—and reaffirmed—my impression of our shared life.

B: Is it possible to prove that animals have feels or empathize?

CS: All the evidence shows that many animals empathize and many—including at least all vertebrates and cephalopods—have conscious experience, in other words, feel. The oldest form of empathy is contagious fear. It coordinates fleeing in bird flocks and fish schools. And the stock market. On top of that, research shows some animals capable of sympathy (caring) and compassion (being motivated to help).

B: Many of us were raised with a lot of separation from the natural world. What should we be doing differently today to make sure young people get to know and care about the natural world?

CS: Most people have no idea where water comes into the house from or where it goes when we flush it. Agriculture would be best as small, local, and seasonal, and with the opportunity to see farmed animals living and being killed. When I was a child, there were live poultry markets where you pointed to a chicken or turkey in a crowded cage and a butcher killed it right there and then for you. Then you have some idea of what eating it entails, and your choices are informed choices.

B: In your career, you’ve researched and written about the natural world from the perspective of many locales, but you’ve particularly focused on oceans and marine life. What is it about oceans that draw you interest? What is it about them that you think is particularly important to share with your audience?

CS: I’ve focused on oceans for two reasons: I lived on Long Island, where the land was mostly occupied and built on, but wildness started at the shore, and so the coast and ocean drew me deeply in. And because humans do not live in and build on the ocean, so I saw a greater chance for restoring living abundance. But I am interested in everything about life, and certainly I am very interested and concerned about wildlife ashore and inland.

B: Given the rate at which humans are negatively impacting the natural world, do you remain hopeful that we can change? If so, where does that hope come from?

CS: Humans are too much of a good thing. But when I was young, pesticides had essentially wiped out three of the most spectacular birds in the U.S.: peregrine falcons, ospreys, and bald eagles. They are now incomparably more abundant. This morning while walking our dogs on the beach, my wife and I saw five ospreys. Fish are now recovering in U.S. waters. We are the first generation in 500 years to be able to say there are more fish in our home waters now than when I was a kid. And only a small handful of people really made each of these things happen. Hope comes from the inspiring beauty of the living world and the planet we’re on in the galaxy we’re in. And from the fact that causes that seemed lost actually were won by a few dedicated, persistent people who succeeded in turning dire situations around. It has happened some. So it can happen more.

B: What are you working on now?

CS: I am working on a book about social learning in non-humans. What do many animals need to learn from others? In a sense, how do they learn and transmit their culture.

B: Of all the animals you’ve spent time with, is there one that you feel you’ve connected with most strongly from an emotional or cognitive perspective?

CS: My doggie Chula. One of the great loves of my life and one of the best friends I’ve ever had. Other than her, I’d say elephants. Their peaceful and supportive way of being in the world seems in some ways better than ours.

Director Jeremy Kagan releases new film: SHOT

Jeremy Kagan is an award-winning (including Emmy and Cable ACE awards) director/writer/producer of feature films and television, and a film professor at USC where he runs the Change Making Media Lab. He served as Artistic Director of the Sundance Institute and is the author of Directors Close Up and My Death: A Personal Guidebook. Jeremy is a long-time member of the Bioneers Community and has lead panels at multiple Bioneers Conferences including The Crossroads of Social Change and The Choir and Beyond.

******

Jeremy Kagan

Dear Friends:

Like many of us I have been deeply troubled by excessive gun violence in our country. I wanted to tell a story that would help us to face the realities of this issue and to feel what others have had to feel.

Rather than produce another documentary about gun violence, I decided to address this critical issue from a humanistic, dramatic narrative perspective, and to tell two stories at once. By using a multiple screens process, I have intertwined the story of the person who is shot simultaneously with the story of the shooter, to create an impacting visceral experience.

My experience over the last decades with Bioneers, having made some videos for the organization, has been a source of inspriation on how to use media to make a difference.

SHOT is a captivating roller coaster ride with terrific performances from Noah Wyle, Sharon Leal, and Jorge Lendeborg, Jr. The powerful visual storytelling involves you in an extreme real time drama when an innocent bystander is shot standing next to his wife, while we also experience the tense tale of the shooter, who is trying not to get caught.

We go to the movies to meet people we care about in challenging situations.  We identify with the choices these characters make, and sometimes what happens to them, encourages us to take action in our own lives.  SHOT is this kind of movie

The movie ends with a call to action giving the viewers an opportunity to join the efforts to change this gun epidemic.

SHOT opens in theaters in NY and LA on September 22. We will also be opening in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Boulder, Santa Fe, Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram: www.shotmovie.org

Here is the trailer: https://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/shot/

I hope this movie will make real and positive change.

In solidarity and compassion,

Jeremy Kagan

Film and Television Director, Writer, Producer

Founder of the Change Making Media Lab

Professor, School of Cinematic Arts, USC

Chairperson of Special Projects for the DGA

Facebook: @ShotEveryonePays

Twitter: @ShotEvery1Pays

Instagram: ShotEvery1Pays

*****

Get involved. SHOT is not just a movie, it’s a movement.

 

Shotmovie.org

#SHOTmovie #stopgunviolence

 

Investing in Our Future: Tom Van Dyck

For anyone paying attention to the decades of simply devastating news about the state of the environment and the human communities who inhabit it, the culprits are fairly clear. Our global economic system has incentivized much of the wrong activity, allowing massive globalized corporations to run rampant over human rights, social justice and the environment. “It’s the corporations, stupid,” as the bumper sticker says.

Thomas Van Dyck has been committed to reshaping this skewed economic incentive structure for his entire career. From helping to grow and meaningfully transform the field of Socially Responsible Investing to founding one of the leading Shareholder Advocacy networks in the world to providing key guidance and leadership for the Divest/Invest movement, Van Dyck has been, quite literally, doing everything he can possibly think of to transform our plunder-driven economic system. Routinely looked to as an expert by major publications like The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Washington Post and Moyers & Company, Thomas Van Dyck is a global leader and changemaker.

Several years ago, the Bioneers Conference hosted a panel session on Reforming Corporate Power with leading advocacy groups representing a range of different approaches, from working “within” the system (e.g. Future 500) to intense outside activist pressure (e.g. Greenpeace) – we called it Good Cop/Bad Cop. Given that corporations represent nearly 60% of the 150 largest economic entities in the world, it was clear that the answer is “yes”: both the carrot and the stick are necessary for any sort of substantive reform.

A glance at Van Dyck’s career path shows this exact inside/outside approach to corporate power. On the carrot side: he’s helped to shift billions of dollars in investments to realign corporate and investor ethics. On the stick side: in 1992 Van Dyck founded the innovative As You Sow Foundation, which works to hold corporations accountable by spearheading the aggressive use of shareholder advocacy to force corporate change at the institutional level while providing major support to influential advocacy/activism organizations (think Rainforest Action Network and The Ruckus Society). I’d encourage readers to take a look at the ‘recent accomplishments’ on the As You Sow webpage. Those folks are really making a difference that millions of us will benefit from on a daily basis.

A mover and shaker in the game since his start as a young man in the early 80s, Van Dyck shows no signs of slowing down. He’s been immensely influential in the Divest/Invest movement, which has been spreading like wildfire since the effort began on select college campuses several years ago. While serving as mentor and guide to young Divestment leaders like Chloe Maxmin and Katie Hoffman, Van Dyck was running the numbers in the background to contextualize the endeavor. Divest/Invest was a full circle return, given he got into the investing business in the early 80s when the Divest South Africa movement was in full swing. According to Van Dyck, major institutional investors pulling out of South Africa were being asked to eliminate up to 40% of the companies in the S&P 500 at the time. Today, it’s more like 8% and, as it turns out, by dropping carbon majors, institutional returns are essentially the same – slightly higher, in many cases. To date, the Divest/Invest movement has commitments on the books to reassign $5 trillion dollars, and rising.

The Same Basic Brain: Exploring Animal Consciousness

Can animals feel? Do they empathize? Do they experience sadness? The more we come to understand the natural world, the more compelling the argument for profound animal consciousness becomes.

beyond-words-book-cover

Human beings, throughout history, have placed themselves in a superior class—one that stands alone at the top of a complex web of Earthly life. Though we know that, by definition, we are animals, we’ve become rather used to distinguishing ourselves from the rest of that web. This manufactured divide allows us to assume that what is “animal” is not “human.” But what if the differences between the brains of humans and those of much of the rest of the animal kingdom are far less distinct than we once assumed? While humans are capable of incredibly complex thought patterns and emotions, writer and conservationist Carl Safina suggests that the historic practice of using humans as a measuring stick by which to diagnose “consciousness” may be flawed.

Explorations of animal and plant intelligence and consciousness have been a part of the Bioneers Conference for decades, and as the research piles up, popular interest continues to grow. We were stunned when a recent Bioneers video on the topic exploded online, now at well over two million views.

In his book Beyond Words (Picador, 2016), Safina describes evidence of radical animal consciousness in elephants, octopuses, honeybees … even worms. The following is an excerpt from the book’s chapter “The Same Basic Brain.”

We’re overjoyed to be hosting Carl Safina at the 2017 Bioneers conference to discuss animal consciousness and lessons from the natural world.

Four rounded babies are following their massive mothers across a broad, sweet-smelling grassland. The adults, striding with deliberate purpose as though keeping an appointment, are nodding toward the wide, wet marsh where about a hundred of their compatriots are mingling. Families commute daily between sleeping areas in brush-thicketed hills and the marshes. For many it’s ten miles (fifteen kilometers) round-trip. Between here and there and sun to sun, a lot can happen.

Our job: travel around in the morning, finding them as they’re coming in; see who’s where. The idea is simple, but there are dozens of families, hundreds of elephants.

“You have to know everyone. Yes!,” Katito Sayialel is saying. Her lilting accent is as clear and light as this African morning. A native Maasai, tall and capable, Katito has been studying free-living elephants with Cynthia Moss for more than two decades.

How many is “everyone”?

“I can recognize all the adult females. So,” Katito considers, “nine hundred to one thousand. Say nine hundred. Yes.”

Recognizing hundreds and hundreds of elephants on sight? How is this possible? Some she knows by marks: the position of a hole in an ear, for instance. But many, she just glances at. They’re that familiar, like your friends are.

When they’re all mingling, you can’t afford to say, “Wait a minute; who was that?” Elephants themselves recognize hundreds of individuals. They live in vast social networks of families and friendships. That’s why they’re famous for their memory. They certainly recognize Katito.

“When I first arrived here,” Katito recalls, “they heard my voice and knew I was a new person. They came to smell me. Now they know me.”

Vicki Fishlock is here, too. A blue-eyed Brit in her early thirties, Vicki studied gorillas and elephants in the Republic of the Congo before bringing her doctoral diploma here to work with Cynthia. She’s been here for a couple of years and has no plans to go anywhere else if she can help it. Usually Katito takes attendance and rolls on. Vicki stays and watches behavior. Today we’re out on a bit of a jaunt; they’re kindly orienting me.

Just outside the high “elephant grass,” five adults and their four young babies are selecting a shorter and far less abundant grass. It’s more work; it must taste better. They haven’t read a treatise on the nutritional content of grass. In a sense, their subconscious tells them what to do by rewarding them with pleasure for making the richer choice. It works the same for us—that’s why sugar and fat taste so good.

The grazing elephants trail a train of egrets and an orbiting galaxy of swirling swallows. The birds rely on elephants to stir up insects as, like great gray ships, they plow through the grassy sea. Light shifts on their wide, rolling backs like sun on ocean waves. Sounds of ripping, chewing. Flap of ear. Plop of dung. The buzz of flies and swoosh of swatting tails. Soft tom-tom footfalls. And, mostly, the quiet ways of ample beasts. Wordlessly they speak of a time before human breath. They get on with their lives, ignoring us.

“They’re not ignoring us,” Vicki corrects. “They have an expectation of politeness, and we’re fulfilling it. So they’re not paying us any mind.

“They weren’t always like this to me,” she adds. “When I started, they were used to vehicles snapping a few pictures and moving along. They were not wildly happy about me just sitting and watching them for long periods. They expect you to behave a certain way. If you don’t, they will let you know that they notice. Not in a threatening way. You might get a head shake and a look like, ‘What’s your problem?’ ”

Through hummocks and the bush, in our vehicle we amble with them. An elephant named Tecla, walking just a few yards ahead to our right, suddenly turns, trumpets, and generally objects to us. To our left , a young elephant wheels and screams.

“Sorry, sorry, sorry,” Katito says to Tecla. She brakes to a stop, turning off the ignition. It appears to me that we have separated this mother from her baby. But Tecla is not the mother. Another female, whose two breasts are full of milk, runs over, cutting just in front of us. This one is actually the mother. Basically Tecla was communicating, “The humans are getting between you and your baby; come and do something.”

“Elephants, they are like human beings,” offers Katito. “Very intelligent. I like their characters. I like the way they behave and hold their family, the way they protect. Yes.”

Like human beings? In some fundamental ways we seem—we are—so similar. But I can see Cynthia wagging a finger of caution, reminding me that elephants are not us; they are themselves.

Mother rejoins baby, restoring order. We slowly proceed. When one individual knows another’s relationship to a third—as Tecla knows who the baby’s mother is—it’s called “understanding third-party relationships.” Primates understand third-party relationships too, and so do wolves, hyenas, dolphins, birds of the crow family, at least some parrots. A parrot, say, can act jealous of its keeper’s spouse. When the vervet monkeys that are common around camp hear an infant’s distress call, they instantly look to the infant’s mother. They know exactly who they and everyone else are. They understand precisely who is important to whom. When free-living dolphin mothers want young ones to stop interacting with humans, the mothers sometimes direct a tail slap at the human who has the baby’s attention, signaling, in effect, “End the game; I need my child’s attention.” When the dawdling youngsters are interacting with dolphin researcher Denise Herzing’s graduate assistants, their mothers occasionally direct these—what could we call them: reprimands?—at Herzing herself. This shows that the dolphins understand that Dr. Herzing is the leader of all the humans in the water. For free-living creatures to perceive rank order in humans—just astonishing.

“What I find most amazing about it,” Vicki sums up, “is that we can understand each other. We learn the elephants’ invisible boundaries. We can sense when it’s time to say, ‘I don’t want to push her.’ Words like ‘irritated,’ ‘happy’ or ‘sad’ or ‘tense’—they really do capture what that elephant is experiencing. We have a shared experience because,” she adds with a twinkle, “we’ve all got the same basic brain.” \

I look at these elephants, so relaxed about us that they’re passing within a couple of paces of our vehicle. Vicki says, “This is one of the greatest privileges, moving along with elephants who are okay with you being here. These guys all go into Tanzania, where there are poachers everywhere. But here—.” Vicki talks to them in soothing tones, saying, “Hello, darling” and “Aren’t you a sweet girl.” Vicki recalls that after the famed Echo’s death, her family went away for three months under the leadership of Echo’s daughter Enid. “And when they returned, I started saying things like ‘Hello, I missed you—’ And suddenly Enid’s head swept up, and she gave this huge rumble; her ears were flapping and they all came around, close enough that I could have touched them, and the glands on all their faces were streaming with emotion. That’s trust. I felt as though,” Vicki says fondly, “I was getting an elephant hug.”

Once, I was watching elephants with another scientist in another African reserve. Several adult elephants were resting with their young in the shade of a palm, fanning their ears in the heat. The scientist opined that the elephants we were watching “might simply be moving to and away from heat gradients, without experiencing anything at all.” He declared,“I have no way of knowing whether that elephant is any more conscious than this bush.”

No way of knowing? For starters, a bush behaves quite differently from an elephant. The bush shows no sign of having a mental experience, of showing emotions, of making decisions, of protecting its offspring. On the other hand, humans and elephants have nearly identical nervous and hormonal systems, senses, milk for our babies; we both show fear and aggression appropriate to the moment. Insisting that an elephant might be no more conscious than a bush isn’t a better explanation for the elephants’ behavior than concluding that an elephant is aware of what’s going on around it. My colleague thought he was being an objective scientist. Quite the opposite; he was forcing himself to ignore the evidence. That’s not scientific—at all. Science is about evidence.

At issue, here, is: Who are we here with? What kinds of minds populate this world?

This is hazardous terrain. We won’t assume that other animals are or aren’t conscious. We’ll look at evidence and go where it leads. It’s too easy to assume wrongly, then carry those assumptions around for, say, centuries.

In the fifth century b.c.e., the Greek philosopher Protagoras pronounced, “Man is the measure of all things.” In other words, we feel entitled to ask the world, “What good are you?” We assume that we are the world’s standard, that all things should be compared to us. Such an assumption makes us overlook a lot. Abilities said to “make us human”—empathy, communication, grief, toolmaking, and so on—all exist to varying degrees among other minds sharing the world with us. Animals with backbones (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) all share the same basic skeleton, organs, nervous systems, hormones, and behaviors. Just as different models of automobiles each have an engine, drivetrain, four wheels, doors, and seats, we differ mainly in terms of our outside contours and a few internal tweaks. But like naïve car buyers, most people see only animals’ varied exteriors.

We say “humans and animals” as though life falls into just two categories: us and all of them. Yet we’ve trained elephants to haul logs from forests; in laboratories we’ve run rats through mazes to study learning, let pigeons tap targets to teach us Psychology 101; we study flies to learn how our DNA works, give monkeys infectious diseases to develop cures for humans; in our homes and cities, dogs have become the guiding protectors for humans who see only by the light of their four-legged companions’ eyes. Throughout all this intimacy, we maintain a certain insecure insistence that “animals” are not like us—though we are animals. Could any relationship be more fundamentally miscomprehended?

To understand elephants we must delve into topics like consciousness, awareness, intelligence, and emotion. When we do, we realize with dismay that there aren’t standard definitions. The same words mean different things. Philosophers, psychologists, ecologists, and neurologists are the blind men all feeling and describing different parts of the same proverbial elephant. But, silver lining: their lack of agreement frees us to walk out of the academic bar brawls into clearer air and a wider view, and do a little of our own thinking.

So let’s start by defining consciousness. The standard we’ll use is: Consciousness is the thing that feels like something. That simple definition comes from Christof Koch, who heads the Allen Institute for Brain Science, in Seattle. Cut your leg, that’s physical. If the cut hurts, you’re conscious. The part of you that knows that the cut hurts, that feels and thinks, is your mind. Relatedly, the ability to feel sensations is called sentience. The sentience of humans, elephants, beetles, clams, jellyfish, and trees ranges on a sliding scale, from complex in people to seemingly none in plants. Cognition refers to the capacity to perceive and acquire knowledge and understanding. Thought is the process of considering something that’s been perceived. Like everything about living things, thought also happens on a wide-ranging sliding scale; thinking can take the form of a jaguar assessing how to approach a wary peccary from directly behind, an archer aiming at a target, or a person considering a proposal of marriage. Sentience, cognition, and thinking are overlapping, processes of conscious minds.

Consciousness is a bit overrated. Heartbeat, breathing, digestion, metabolism, immune responses, healing of cuts and fractures, internal timers, sexual cycling, pregnancy, growth—all function without consciousness. Under general anesthesia we remain very much alive though not conscious. And during sleep our unconscious brains are working hard, cleansing, sorting, rejuvenating. Your body is run by a competent staff that’s been on the job since before the company acquired consciousness. Too bad you can’t personally meet your team.

We might imagine consciousness as the computer screen we see and interact with, one run by software codes that we can’t detect and don’t have a clue about. Most of the brain runs in the dark. As science author and former Rolling Stone magazine editor Tim Ferris wrote, “One’s mind neither controls nor comprehends most of what’s going on in one’s brain.”

Why be conscious at all? Trees and jellyfish do just fine, yet may not experience sensations. Consciousness seems necessary when we must judge things, plan, and make decisions.

How does consciousness—elephant, human, whatever—arise in the mush of our physical cells and the mesh of their electrical and chemical impulses? How does a brain create a mind? No one knows how nerve cells, also called neurons, create consciousness. What we know: consciousness can be affected by brain damage. So consciousness does happen in the brain. As Nobel Prize–winning mind-brain scientist Eric R. Kandel wrote in 2013, “Our mind is a set of operations carried out by our brain.” Consciousness seems to somehow result from, and depend on, neurons networking.

How many networked neurons are needed? No one knows where the most rudimentary consciousness lurks. Jellyfish, probably not conscious; worms, maybe so. With about one million brain cells, honeybees recognize patterns, scents, and colors in flowers and remember their locations. The bees’ “waggle dance” communicates to their fellow hivemates the direction, distance, and richness of nectar they’ve found. Bees “show superb expertise,” says famed neurologist Oliver Sacks. Honeybees will interrupt a colleague’s waggle dance if they’ve experienced trouble at the same flower source, such as a brush with a predator like a spider. Honeybees subjected by researchers to simulated attack show, said researchers, “the same hallmarks of negative emotions that we find in humans.” Even more intriguingly, honeybee brains contain the same “thrill-seeker” hormones that in human brains drive some people to consistently seek novelty. If those hormones do deliver some tingle of pleasure or motivation to the bees, it means bees are conscious. Certain highly social wasps can recognize individuals by their faces, something previously believed the sole domain of a few elite mammals. “It is increasingly evident,” says Sacks, “that insects can remember, learn, think, and communicate in quite rich and unexpected ways.”

Honeybee

Can elephants, insects, or any other creature really be conscious without the big wrinkly cerebral cortex where human thinking happens? Turns out, yes; even humans can be. A thirty-year-old man named Roger lost about 95 percent of his cortex to a brain infection. Roger can’t remember the decade before the infection, can’t taste or smell, and has great difficulty forming new memories. Yet he knows who he is, recognizes himself in a mirror and in photographs, and generally acts normal around people. He can use humor and can feel embarrassed. All with a brain that does not resemble a human brain.

The common human notion that humans alone experience consciousness is backward. Human senses have evidently dulled during civilization. Many animals are superhumanly alert—just watch these elephants when anything changes—their detection equipment exquisitely tuned for the merest crackle of danger or whiff of opportunity. In 2012, scientists drafting the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness concluded that “all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses,” have nervous systems capable of consciousness. (Octopuses use tools and solve problems as skillfully as do most apes—and they’re mollusks.) Science is confirming the obvious: other animals hear, see, and smell with their ears, eyes, and noses; are frightened when they have reason for fright and feel happy when they appear happy.

As Christof Koch writes, “Whatever consciousness is . . . dogs, birds, and legions of other species have it. . . . They, too, experience life.”

My dog Jude was sleeping on the rug, dreaming of running, his wrists flicking, when he let out a long, eerily muffled howl. Chula, my other dog, instantly piqued, trotted over to Jude. Jude startled awake and leapt to his feet barking loudly, just as a person wakes from a night terror with a vivid image and a scream, taking a few moments to get oriented.

Each line we attempt to draw crisply, as between elephants and humans, nature has already blurred with the smudgy brush of deep relation. But what about living things with no nervous system? That is a dividing line. Isn’t it?

With no apparent nervous system, plants make the same chemicals—such as serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate—that serve as neurotransmitters and help create mood in animals, including humans. And plants have signaling systems that work basically as do animals’, though slower. Michael Pollan observes, a bit metaphorically, that “plants speak in a chemical vocabulary we can’t directly perceive or comprehend.” That’s not to say that plants experience sensations, necessarily, but they do some intriguing things. We detect chemicals by smell and taste; plants sense and respond to chemicals in air, soil, and on themselves. Plants’ leaves turn to track the sun. Growing roots approaching an obstacle or toxin sometimes alter course prior to contact. Plants have reportedly responded to the recorded sound of a munching caterpillar by producing defensive chemicals. Plants attacked by insects and herbivores emit “distress” chemicals, causing adjacent leaves and neighboring plants to mount chemical defenses, and alerting insect-killing wasps to move in, blunting the attack. Flowers are plants’ way of telling bees and other pollinators that nectar is ready.

But except for insectivorous and sensitive-leaved plants, most plants behave too slowly for the human eye. Gazing across a meadow, Pollan wrote, he “found it difficult to imagine the invisible chemical chatter, including the calls of distress, going on all around—or that these motionless plants were engaged in any kind of ‘behavior’ at all.” Yet Charles Darwin concluded his book The Power of Movement in Plants by noting, “It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle [root] . . . acts like the brain of one of the lower animals . . . receiving impression from the sense organs and directing the several movements.” Granted, we are treading into a vast minefield of potential misinterpretation. Like Cynthia Moss with elephants, the late botanist Tim Plowman, wasn’t interested in comparing plants to people. He appreciated them as plants. “They can eat light,” he said. “Isn’t that enough?”

My main reason for getting into the weeds here is to realize that, compared to the strangeness of plants and the large differences between plants and animals, an elephant nursing her baby is so like us that she might as well be my sister.

This excerpt on has been reprinted with permission from Beyond Words by Carl Safina, published by Picador, 2016. Catch Safina speaking on animal consciousness and lessons from the natural world at the 2017 Bioneers Conference.

Charlottesville and Beyond

Here at Bioneers, we’re shocked and horrified at the savage hate and violence by the alt-right in Charlottesville, but, sadly, we’re not surprised. Trump & Friends have spent years and decades brewing the toxic potion of bigotry into raw political power and plutocratic structures of domination. These are the death throes of an archaic worldview that’s being fueled and manipulated by cynical elites.

These events reveal the poisonous id of American politics for all to see, unvarnished and unapologetic. We need to purge these toxins from our culture, our politics, and our hearts.

As Heather Heyer’s mother so very eloquently said at her daughter’s funeral, if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention, and we need to make her needless death count. The bigger the light, the longer the shadow. Even as we grieve and acknowledge the terrible trauma, this is our time to bring a whole lot of light into the world, to transform our pain into healing.

This is a transformational moment, and it’s up to us which way the nation will go. As this vicious underbelly of hate has slithered into the light, what it’s revealing and catalyzing is the revulsion to it by the vast majority of people. The culture has already moved far past these twisted ways of seeing and being. Diversity is an article of faith in the natural world – the way things are and are meant to be for healthy, thriving life.

Please let us know your thoughts, feelings and initiatives. This is the time for a massive change for transformation. May we be the change and transform our pain into power and love.

Kenny Ausubel, Bioneers Founder & CEO

Speaking Truth to Power, Bioneers on Charlottesville

This last weekend, in the city of Charlottesville, VA, a group of white supremacists including neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members gathered for a “Unite the Right” march to “take America back”. They were met by counter-protesters and violence broke out.

#Bioneers faculty across the world responded to the events in Charlottesville this weekend:

 

john a. powell

“We must continue to organize and participate and do more in the face of organized hate. We must come forward with not only messages but policies and platforms that advance equality and inclusion. We must protect the protestors who take a stand against hate. These are people helping America be its best self. If we are to pull America back from hate, there must be supporters from all political persuasions and voices from every race, ethnicity, religion, and faith. If we are to stand for equality and love, we must ground ourselves in these values and we must indeed take a stand. We are America’s present and its future.”

 

Rachel Bagby

“I do know there is something here for the women to heal, to come together, to dedicate ourselves to healing and continuing. What we have seen here and experienced here in Charlottesville today is not something that’s new. And it’s not something that just the folks that came from outside brought here. It’s something that’s simmering in the very foundation of the conditions, the attitudes, the bigotry, the izm schisms that help to make this country. And so we see what we have to heal.”

 

350.org

“Here at 350.org, we know white supremacy is not limited to klan rallies and alt-right forums. The hateful rally, violence and act of terrorism we witnessed yesterday were home grown, rooted in the racist history of this country, watered and tended by the bold hate speech and encouragement of the Trump administration, and harvested by each individual who chose to participate in the white supremacist rally.”

 

Terry Tempest Williams

“My thoughts exactly, written by Michael Gerson.

 

Van Jones

“Both sides are not mowing people down with cars.”

 

Malkia A. Cyril

“Just like 1960’s civil rights leaders used TV to shine a light on injustice, we use the #OpenInternet to witness and act. #Charlottesville

“Racial prejudice alone is not the problem. It’s prejudice, plus power and impunity that makes White Supremacy dangerous. #Charlottesville

“Trump said this is about hate. It’s not, it’s about power. He said it’s coming from many sides. White Supremacy only has one side: its own.

 

Race Forward

“Race Forward stands behind all of the people on the frontlines who are putting themselves in harm’s way to beat back hate, racism, xenophobia, and violence. A strong multiracial movement is the only solution for dismantling structural racism. Race Forward is committed to building that movement. Together, we have the power to shape a future that elevates the voices of communities of color that have been most marginalized and oppressed, and together build a multiracial, inclusive democracy in which all can thrive.  ”

 

Tony Porter

“All forms of group oppression are rooted in our collective socialization. We can undo racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc., through education.” #CharlottesvilleCurriculum

 

Michael Brune, Sierra Club

“Hatred and racism have long played a disgraceful part of American history, but there can be no doubt that those who spew white supremacy feel empowered right now when they see allies in the corridors of power. These bigots must be condemned, not coddled, and we are in solidarity with those elected officials, residents of Charlottesville, and people all over this country who are speaking out for an America that pushes forward toward justice, not slides backward into hatred and fear.”

 

Eriel Deranger

“Some days you just have to push through the hard. Other days you have to lean into it.
The personal trials and tribulations this year are many. Many of them part and parcel to the multigenerational trauma experienced by my people that live their lives being told to get over it, while they slip deeper into the darkness created by society wrought with white supremacy.”

 

Pennie Opal Plant

“This time is about tearing the scabs off of the deep wounds in this country made by a nation created by genocide and torture. The infection runs deep and a wound cannot heal when it is hidden. White supremacists are still in the street in Charlottesville today. Now we can see their faces. We can see their fear masquerading as anger and violence. We can see their immaturity and ignorance regarding the history of this country. We see them. Look, pray, stand strongly together, family. This part will be difficult, it will be dangerous, we must stand together.”

How are you standing in solidarity with Charlottesville, #Bioneers? Stay connected with us – share your stories, resources, and visions.

Practical Ways to Transcend and Transform: john a. powell

By Kenny Ausubel, Bioneers CEO & Co-Founder

john a. powell’s decades of work delving deeply into the process of “Othering” shows practical ways we transcend and transform the all-too-human tendency to retreat into tribalized and racialized identities that diminish others as less than human.

I strongly encourage you to view the five-minute video with john telling the story of “The Invention of Whiteness” from my forthcoming movie (“Changing of the Gods,” 2018). As john points out, whiteness as a concept did not always exist and had to be invented by elites as a tool to divide and conquer.

john’s many years of racial justice work crystallized in his current role as Founder and Director of UC Berkeley’s esteemed Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society, which is a national beacon for the leading edges of how we can recognize our interconnectedness as people and as members of the diverse web of life, and turn it into systemic and policy change.

The Haas Institute brings together researchers and scholars, community partners, strategic communicators, and policymakers to identify and eliminate the barriers to an inclusive, just, and sustainable society and to create transformative change toward a more equitable world.

john is a Professor of Law, African American, and Ethnic Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, where he holds the Robert D. Haas Chancellor’s Chair in Equity and Inclusion. He’s an internationally recognized expert in the areas of civil rights and civil liberties and a wide range of issues including race, structural racialization, ethnicity, housing, poverty, and democracy. He joined the Bioneers Board early this year after many years of participating in the Bioneers conference.

In the filmed interview I did with john, he points out some of the hidden history of the New Deal that’s coming home to roost again today. The only way FDR could gain Congressional support for radical ideas such as the minimum wage and social security was to make a deal with Southern Dixiecrat politicians that the New Deal would be for only white people and would not disturb the racialized caste system of the South.

The 1960s civil rights movement, including Dr. King’s Poor People’s Campaign, was designed to finally bring to fruition the promise of the New Deal for African Americans and people of color. In turn, that provoked the white identity backlash exploited in the Southern Strategy by Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon, stoking racial anxiety to divide and conquer ongoing.

Today’s racialized upheavals around white identity can be traced to the Southern Strategy becoming the national strategy of the Republican Party, of which Trump is the logical outcome.

In his most recent address to the Bioneers Conference, john sheds light on how we can move through this transformational moment in American society when an increasingly diverse national and global society calls for all of us to overcome the burdens of history and rise together as one in the recognition that we are one – on one Earth.

Carbon Farming: Building Soil to Radically Mitigate Climate Disruption

Calla Rose Ostrander and John Wick will address a keynote talk during the 2017 Bioneers Conference and host a workshop on Monday, October 23.

It doesn’t seem that long ago when carbon was not a topic of everyday conversation. But that’s changed now that carbon literally hangs over our heads like the sword of Damocles, a grim reminder of the dangers of continuing to feast blindly on the affluence of a fossil fuel economy.

The irony is that carbon, the basic building block of life, has been so systematically misused, it has become humanity’s greatest threat. The consequences of carbon’s excess in the atmosphere affect all life. After all, it’s carbon’s nature to be a foundational aspect of nearly all biological forms and processes.

So, is it a surprise to say the imbalance in carbon in the atmosphere can cause political instability?  Not according to former Secretary of State John Kerry who said: “It’s not a coincidence that, immediately prior to the civil war in Syria, the country experienced its worst drought on record.”

And it should also come as no surprise that climate disruption will affect food supply. A study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research said that without substantial emission reductions, the US, the world’s largest food exporter, would suffer serious (20-40%) yield losses in wheat, soy and corn by the end of the century.

But many say a reduction in emissions alone will not get the job done even if the world gets serious about transitioning to a non-carbon economy at the rate of the Paris Climate Accord. Does that mean that the situation is insoluble?

“The most intractable problem today,” Margaret Mead said, “is not pollution or technology or war, but the lack of belief that the future is very much in the hands of the individual.”

Two individuals who decided to do something about the existential dilemma of our global climate unraveling from its evolved harmonious state into an unstable and inhospitable state are John Wick and Calla Rose Ostrander. John is the co-founder of the Marin Carbon Project and Calla Rose has spent almost 20 years working to transform large complex systems like the cities of Aspen, CO and San Francisco from climate problems to climate solutions.

As dead serious as both John and Calla Rose are about solving the climate quandary, they are, on a personal level, quite joyful; perhaps because they may have found the elixir of life–carbon.

What they want to do is re-shift the balance of excessive atmospheric carbon and capture it in the soil where, instead of being a disruptive force, it supports healthy life systems by increasing fertility and water retention, and kick-starts the biology of the soil food web resulting in increased yields and healthier more resilient plants while holding carbon deep in the soil in a stable form reducing the atmospheric overload.

Make no mistake, this is not some hobby project on the rural fringes of Marin. Soil carbon, as an answer to climate change, is being adopted into global climate thinking. France has introduced the 4 per 1000 Initiative, which promotes a 4% increase in soil carbon per year and is working to bring players in the public and private sectors to get on board.

The math is extremely encouraging in regards to how re-carbonizing depleted soils globally could play a transformative role in turning the clock back on climate change by drawing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in the soil through the everyday ubiquitous magic of photosynthesis.

Wow, there is a future and it’s dirty and full of earthworms and mycorrhizae fungi, nematodes and billions of beneficial bacteria—all thanks to carbon.

Calla Rose Ostrander has teamed up with John Wick and the Marin Carbon Project team to do the trials and gather the rigorous science on how pasture lands can be managed to maximize carbon sequestration. They are working with ranchers to develop carbon farming plans and their work has been instrumental in influencing the potentially game changing California Healthy Soils Initiative that will monetarily incentivize carbon farming.

Agriculture and land management have been underestimated if not completely missing from the climate conversation. Food production accounts for about 40 % of the earth’s land use. A deeper understanding of how the carbon cycle works and how that informs climate smart soil management practices may very well be the most realistically hopeful solution in solving our most intractable problem.

John Wick and Calla Rose Ostrander share their momentous work on carbon farming research, practices, policies and how they are building a statewide network of carbon farmers and ranchers in a keynote presentation at the Bioneers conference (Oct. 20-22). And on October 23, in a full day workshop at Stemple Creek Ranch, they will be joined by an array of remarkable farmers, scientists, ecologists and food system activists who will make the connection between carbon and climate justice, local foods systems, organic agriculture, and agroforestry.

Yes, there is a future, its secret is in the soil and, like all life, it is made of carbon.

Never Acquiesce: Democracy Now! and Independent Media’s Role in War and Peace

Amy Goodman tells the story of reporting from a refugee camp, and discusses the ways in which her independent media organization, Democracy Now!, endeavors to ask the tough questions and change history.

In 1996, Democracy Now!—a well-known independent radio and television program—began telling stories the mainstream media overlooked. With award-winning journalist Amy Goodman at the helm, the nonprofit organization has grown to become the United States’ largest collaboration of public media, currently broadcast on more than 1,400 stations. Democracy Now!’s programming has covered wars, economic catastrophes, environmental degradation, and social movements, and its hosts, Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, have become trusted voices within a mass-media cacophony. Bioneers has been honored to host Goodman on our stage over the years, and we look forward to her appearance at the 2017 conference.

The independent media organization’s self-titled book, Democracy Now! (Simon & Schuster, 2017), recounts 20 years of groundbreaking storytelling through Goodman’s lens. The book’s first chapter, “The War and Peace Report,” is a deep-dive into the violence—and consequences thereof—witnessed and reported on by Democracy Now! journalists. The following is an excerpt from that chapter.

Endless wars have now spawned the largest migration of human beings since World War II. Europe has been the first stop for this wave of humanity.

In December 2015, my Democracy Now! colleagues and I visited a massive, makeshift refugee camp called “The Jungle” on the outskirts of the northern French town of Calais. The camp grows daily, swelling with asylum-seekers fleeing war in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, and beyond. Their countries of origin are a map of the targets of US bombing campaigns. More than six thousand people in this, France’s largest refugee camp, hope for a chance to make the last, dangerous leg of their journey through the nearby Channel Tunnel to England. Wind whips off the North Sea, blasting the shelters made of tarps, tents, plastic sheeting, and scrap lumber in this sprawling, ramshackle end of the line. The roads in the camp are muddy; the portable toilets are filthy. The charity health clinic had been closed since mid-November. The main entrance to the camp is below a freeway, with several police vans parked with lights flashing and armed officers stationed above.

Most who arrive here have endured arduous journeys of thousands of miles, hoping to cross to the United Kingdom. The Channel Tunnel offers asylum-seekers a way to make it to the UK without risking a dangerous crossing of the English Channel, by stowing away on either a high-speed passenger train or a freight train. Accessing either type of train involves significant risk, and accidental deaths occur almost weekly when people leap onto moving trains or stumble under truck tires.

A few days before Democracy Now! visited the camp, a Sudanese man named Joseph was killed when he was run over by a car on the highway. Camp residents were protesting that the police had not stopped the driver, holding signs reading “We are Humans, Not Dogs” and “Do survivors of war not have the right to live in peace?” We asked a young man named Majd from Damascus, Syria, why he fled his country: “I escaped from the war. I don’t want to die. This war is not my war.” We asked him who was attacking his country. He said: “Who? Everyone. Russia and America and Iran—everyone.”

Days before we met Majd, the British Parliament voted to attack Syria and began bombing immediately. In the few months prior, the British government built multiple layers of high, razor-wire-topped fences in Calais, sealing off the tunnel entrance and the rail line for miles before the tunnel, as well as the staging area where freight trucks line up to drive onto the rail cars that will carry them through the tunnel. Each truck is also subjected to an infrared scan to look for stowaways. Before the enhanced security, scores of asylum-seekers might get through the tunnel nightly. Now, it is almost impossible. The more the West bombs their countries, the more it shuts out those who flee its wars.

In the Afghan section of the refugee camp, Sidiq Husain Khil was eager to speak about the fourteen-year-old US war in Afghanistan—the longest war in US history. Like many, he did not want his face to be filmed. We asked him about the effects of US bombing and drone strikes on Afghanistan. He replied: “If they are killing one person or ten persons, one hundred of them are joining the group of Taliban…. The war is not the solution for finishing terrorism. They have to talk face-to-face.”

As we roamed the camp, pulling our coats tightly around us in the cold, we looked for a woman who would be willing to speak. We met Dur, an Afghan professor of English, who also did not want her face shown. She traveled more than three thousand miles with her four children, by car, bus, horse, foot, and boat. In almost perfect English, her twelve-year-old daughter described their unimaginable route: “First we go to Nimruz province of Afghanistan. Then we went to Pakistan. Then we walked to Saravan, Balochistan. Then Iranshahr, Kerman, Shiraz, Tehran, Kurdistan, and Turkey. Then we start walking in mountains. Then we went to Istanbul, Izmir. Then we arrived to the sea.” Dur hired a smuggler to take them in a leaky boat from Turkey to Greece. She told me, “When I saw that boat… I called all my children and I start to cry… I spent all my money to buy them death.” Miraculously, they survived. Whether they make it to their destination, Britain, is another question.

As we left the camp, a man named Najibullah raced up to us. An Afghan who worked with the US Marines as a translator, he applied for a special visa for Afghans who put themselves at risk by working for the United States. He said he was turned down because he hadn’t worked for the marines for a full year. “Working with the US government… just one day or a year… it doesn’t matter to the Taliban,” he told me. “As long as you work with them just one hour, you’re condemned to death.”

“Today, Joseph. Tomorrow, who?” read one of the many signs at the protest earlier that day. These refugees are the roadkill of war.

A few days after we left the camp, a painting appeared on the concrete wall of the underpass, where the protest had occurred. It was painted by the globally renowned street artist Banksy, whose identity has never been revealed. Banksy painted a life-size depiction of Steve Jobs, the visionary founder of Apple, with a bag slung over his shoulders. Banksy released a statement to accompany the painting of Jobs:

“We’re often led to believe migration is a drain on the country’s resources but Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian migrant. Apple is the world’s most profitable company, it pays over $7 billion a year in taxes—and it only exists because they allowed in a young man from Homs.”

A Noble Endeavor

Working for peace is among the most important and noble of human endeavors. Individuals might feel powerless when confronted with a nation intent on going to war, but history shows that movements matter; that small acts of defiance and dissent can ripple out and create change. Noam Chomsky is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor emeritus of linguistics, a field of science that he revolutionized. He is perhaps best known, though, as one of the world’s most prolific analysts of US foreign policy. He has authored over a hundred books and still, in his late eighties, is a tireless writer and speaker on issues of war and peace. In the early 1990s, Chomsky wrote an essay called “What You Can Do,” which reads in part,

One of the things [people in power] want is a passive, quiescent population. So one of the things that you can do to make life uncomfortable for them is not be passive and quiescent. There are lots of ways of doing that. Even just asking questions can have an important effect. Demonstrations, writing letters and voting can all be meaningful—it depends on the situation. But the main point is—it’s got to be sustained and organized. If you go to one demonstration and then go home, that’s something, but the people in power can live with that. What they can’t live with is sustained pressure that keeps building, organizations that keep doing things, people who keep learning lessons from the last time and doing it better the next time.

Covering social movements like those Chomsky was writing about, reporting on efforts to effect lasting change—the movements that make history—that is our daily labor at Democracy Now! The global protest on February 15, 2003, didn’t stop the invasion of Iraq. We can’t know for sure what impact it had, or continues to have, as the demands of those thirty million marchers continue to reverberate. Thousands of individuals and groups around the world continue to work for peace, each contributing a small share to what Martin Luther King Jr. called, in his “Beyond Vietnam” speech, “the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world.”

This excerpt has been reprinted with permission from Democracy Now!: Twenty Years Covering the Movements Changing America by Amy Goodman, published by Simon & Schuster, 2017.

Watch a video of Amy Goodman’s 2006 Bioneers conference talk below, and check out her 2017 speaker page for more on her involvement in our upcoming conference.

Bioneers in the News: July 2017

Searching for the perfect news round-up? Look no further! We’ll keep you savvy with all the Bioneers creativity and inspiration you need in your life. Follow the Bioneers Blog for our bi-weekly news roundup: 

“Beyond the fields, women are working to make every aspect of the food system more sustainable, equitable, and innovative. Whether it is researching new technologies to reduce food waste or founding organizations to better feed the hungry, women are working around the world to build the future of food.” We are honored to have 2 of these incredible 22 women, Rowan White and Saru Jarayman, gracing the #Bioneers2017 stage.

Occidental folks, this one’s for you! The Forum on Religion and Ecology Conference at Yale is featuring two long-time #Bioneers, Kristin Rothballer and Brock Dolman, at an August retreat. Learn more »

Danny Kennedy’s Organization,  CalCEF, is putting together a virtual Hackathon to tap into the genius of our U.S. Veteran Community to crowd source design of the Ultimate Virtual Clean Energy Hackathon. The winners will receive $500 each! Learn more »

What would Thoreau think of climate change? Bill McKibben explores what “Walden” could teach us about our own time on his 200th birthday.

“All those girls who are growing up . . . need to see women who are really owning themselves in a self-loving way, and serving the transformation of the world.” How femininity can save humanity? Nina Simons, Bioneers co-founder, is interviewed by Lauren Schiller on her show, the Inflection Point – listen today!

“If you’re not incorporating the most brilliant ideas from the natural world into what you sell, you’re leaving money on the table. Biomimicry is now going mainstream.” How do you incorporate biomimicry into your life? Jay Harman is featured in this piece on “5 Trends to Ride in 2017” »

Paul Hawken speaks with VOX about his ambitious new effort to “map, measure, and model” global warming solutions.

“I’m not a fatalist. The reason I’m an activist is because I think that the future, at least in part, is up for grabs. I think that there are great forces that produce some outcomes that are deterministic or semi-deterministic. And there are other elements that are up for grabs.” #Bioneers2017 keynote speaker, Cory Doctorow

Listen to a new podcast episode of Deena Metzger, author of A Rain of Night Birds, in conversation with Nina Simons on Rare Bird Radio here!

Outdoor equipment and clothing companies led by Patagonia, but including names like REI, North Face, and Adidas, are joining together in an unprecedented alliance. These folks are organizing to resist the Trump administration’s attempts to roll back land protection in national monuments and forests, with the Bears Ears one of the hottest flash points. One of the #Bioneers2017 panels this year will focus on large-scale land conservation, and Deon Ben of the Grand Canyon Trust will be there to chat all about it.

“The change that we need is not going to come from a politician…it’s going to come from something that’s always been the driver of change – people power, power of young people” Board Member Xiuhtezcatl Martinez in Rolling Stone »

Xiuhtezcatl Martinez Bioneers Conference 2015 © Nikki Ritcher

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up to date on the latest Bioneers news in real time.

The Amazing Life of Bees and the Threat of Systemic Pesticides: An interview with urban beekeeper Terry Oxford.

Terry Oxford of UrbanBeeSF has been a successful treatment-free beekeeper on San Francisco rooftops gardens since 2011 and an outspoken advocate against pesticides that harm pollinators. Arty Mangan, program lead for the Restorative Food Systems Program at Bioneers sat down with Terry to talk about bees.

AM: Bee society is very sophisticated. Some people refer to the hive as a super organism.

Terry Oxford: It’s a completely intelligent being. You have to look at a hive as an entire entity. It’s made up of different components and living parts, but the whole thing operates as one system, and the entire goal is to keep itself alive. Everything it does is for the whole, for the group.

That’s why bees are so much more intelligent than humans are because bees are long-termers on the planet. They’ve been here for billions of years. They’re going to far outlive us because they work for the whole. They work for the group and help support each other. It’s very unselfish, whereas, humans – bless our souls – are much more focused on the individual and we don’t see ourselves as a group. We’re less sustainable as a species than bees are.

Bees sacrifice themselves for the others and interact with other parts of nature during pollination, that’s what makes them such special creatures and important to so many different parts of our existence.

The whole hive is largely a female group. There is the queen and the workers. The workers are the bees you typically see outside of the hive working in flowers. They bring in the nectar and the pollen. When they’re very young they stay home and they do jobs within the hive, such as nurse bees, taking care of the larvae, packing the pollen and doing all sorts of work.

The males, who are also very very important, reproduce with the queen. That’s their main job. They’re shorter lived and are often removed from the hive if they’re not needed. The ratio is much higher female to male within the hive at any given time.

The important thing about the hive to consider is that it is basically a uterus. The entire thing is a nest of eggs and larvae at varying stages of life, and the nest has to be protected, taken care of, fed, and the entire thing is constantly keeping itself at a certain temperature to keep the larvae alive, and also at a certain critical mass of larvae.

Bees plan for a future hive that may not include them individually, because they don’t live very long. Their whole existence is about keeping the babies healthy and safe. That’s what keeps them sustainable. I really admire that as a society.

AM: You’re in an urban environment, do the bees help put you in touch with nature in the city?

Terry Oxford: Raising bees in the city is critically important. About 6 or 7 years ago the majority of the planetary population shifted from rural to urban. Cities are now where most of us live, and one of the things that is making us suffer as a species- our madness and depressions- come from a lack of nature.

In 2010 I put bees on the roof of Quince and Cotogna restaurants. They’ve planted a pollinator garden on their roof. Any beekeeper knows that’s just a snack, but it’s an important message, and it’s symbolic of what you can do wherever you are. Now almost all of my rooftop gardens are all organic, largely native, and the restaurants pick flowers and vegetables for the meals. Everything serves a purpose.

I see all sorts of nature on the rooftops. I see stick bugs, swarms of beneficial insects like ladybugs. They come because there’s food. I see a lot of birds, and I feed them. They’ll eat the dead bees on the ground, or they just pick them out of the air.

I make a concerted effort to get companies interested in helping bees-grocers, hotels, all these groups- to put bees on their roofs. I ask that they make sure they’re planting plants that aren’t poisonous to bees. If they aren’t interested in doing that, then I don’t work with them. I only work with companies that will really, truly be green and do something effective to feed the nature in the city.

I work with a company that manages seven commercial properties in the city, and they’ve created little pollinator feeding stations all around downtown. It’s filled with all these native pollinators. You already see mason bees flitting around. It’s safe. It’s not filled with any chemicals.

AM: What are the issues with pesticides and pollinators?

Terry Oxford: There is so much to fight for right now on this planet. There are so many causes, so many fires going, so to save my sanity I picked one fight that I think I can make a little dent in – that’s the systemic pesticides or neonics that have been used in the United States. They were introduced on the market probably 18 years ago. Their invention and use matches exactly the decline of the pollinator system.

When I say pollinators, I’m talking about all the major important pollinators, not just honeybees, the birds, bats, butterflies, native bees, all of these creatures that don’t have as much of a voice as the honeybee does.

Systemic neonicotinoids are a class of pesticide/insecticide that are amazingly effective. Systemic refers to the delivery system for the poison. You can inject it into a tree trunk, you can drizzle it in a soil drench on the root ball, you can spray it on the leaf. It goes inside of the system of the plant and it comes out in the nectar, the pollen, and the moisture drops that ooze out of the leaf that a bumble bee will come along and take a sip of. It’s can be deadly immediately or it can be taken back to the hive and packed into that uterus in the pollen or nectar where it sits in the heat, off-gassing. The neonics kill the reproductive system of the queen, and they’re saying it might have an effect on the males’ reproductive systems as well. It kills over time. It also destroys their navigation system. A bee without navigation is a bee without a home, so it dies. That’s why these particular class of poisons are so incredibly horrible.

Photo By David Lawrence

There is so much money being made by the pesticide corporations with these poisons that there is no way that they will allow any legislation against them. They don’t care about the pollinator system.  They work really, really hard to fight any legislation to stop or even slow down these poisons. They don’t spend any money on fixing the problem and changing their products. They just intimidate. They’re just like the tobacco industry, and they control the narrative.

Last year in April, there was a really great bill in front of the Sacramento legislature – Senate Bill 1282, a pesticide bill that would have prevented the general public from buying neonicotinoid pesticides, a very bad poison that is so toxic that in agricultural conditions you have to be licensed to use it. But currently anybody can buy it and spray it all over their garden and kill everything. The bill was going to ban that, plus require that plants treated with neonics be labeled in California.

The pesticide industry has been working to control the narrative, often through beekeeper associations. Many beekeeper associations will not allow discussion against the pesticide industry. They just shut it down over and over again. The California Beekeepers Association voted with the pesticide industry to prevent the passage of this bill on imidacloprid, which is one of the worst poisons.

I’ve been to the meetings in Sacramento. I’ve tried to talk about this at beekeeping meetings. I’ve been silenced in my own beekeeping association. The pesticide industry operates with the same playbook as the tobacco industry, the oil industry.

The only measurement that we make of bees is honey, because that’s financially the reason that we’re tied to them and also the reason that they have a voice. Trees are the best source of food – pollen, that’s protein, and nectar, that’s carbohydrate. These two important nutritional factors are critical to the life of the pollinator system. Trees are the best way to ensure that bees are healthy, and that they get healthy, diverse nutrition.

In California, almost every major conventional farming tree nursery is treating their trees with some sort of systemic, making the flowers poisonous. When you plant a tree that has any sort of systemic in it, it will probably last for years, bloom after poisonous bloom, year after year these trees are emitting toxic levels of poison to pollinators.

Why these systemic poisons are so bad is they are persistent. They accumulate in all sorts of areas. They accumulate in the beehive. They may not kill instantly. The pesticide industry doesn’t have to prove their product is safe. They just grease the wheels and the product gets approved and overused by the general public and agriculture as well.

When you go out and buy a garden plant that’s good for pollinators, like lavender, for instance, if it’s not organic and if it’s treated with a neonic, it’s likely to kill pollinators. So you’re going to a store with the full intention of helping the planetary life system of pollinators, and you’re coming back with a little pod of poison and putting that in your garden. For the entire life of that plant or potentially up to 6 years in a tree, it’s poisonous to anything coming for some nectar or pollen.

Unless you are buying plants that are organic or native; no native plant nursery I’ve spoken to uses chemicals like that. But I feel like in these times you’ve got to know, you have to ask the question: What has this been treated with? The general public has a lot of trust in what they’re told. I think that we all need to be much more skeptical. Annie’s Annuals in the East Bay or Bay Area Natives in San Francisco don’t use systemic pesticides. There’s a new nursery in Santa Rosa called Bees and Blooms. They’re planting all organic, biodynamic trees that are great for the Bay Area and have flower blooms almost all year long. They’ve just completed a planting of 1100 flowering ornamental tree seedlings. If I have anything to do with it they’re going to be sold to the City of San Francisco in order to feed my pollinators. But the safest thing to do is to find an all organic nursery.

What I’m hoping to create is a need for systemic-free trees that the City of San Francisco will buy so they’ll stop planting their systemic-filled trees. San Francisco is going to be planting 55,000 trees over the next several years. 75% of those are treated with systemics.

California is the battleground we need to win. If we can get California tree nurseries on board, it will be able to create the financial necessity that the tree nursery industry will listen to.

I think if you want to be a healthy human being, you have to be focused on empathy and compassion for the things that don’t have any voice and don’t have any power. That’s basically the entire natural world.

My fight is for this city and the nature that we live with and need more of. I go to government and city meetings, and they all know me. I had a legislator say to me that I was the very first person to come to him defending earthworms. I took that as a compliment!

 Terry Oxford will be displaying her bee produced art at the Bioneers conference October 20-23