The Cut Leaf Thelypody in Dry Canyon

[Plants of the Dry Canyon Natural Area – This will be the start of a new series focused on the plants of Redmond’s Dry Canyon. I’m creating them to be posted for ‘local’ consumption on the Friends of North Dry Canyon Natural Area. It’s a City Park including about 166 acres at the north end of Dry Canyon Park which the City has identified as a Natural Preserve. The group works as an advocate with the City, on public education and helping with on the ground work projects. I’ll identify each such post here.]

As you walk the trails below the canyon rims you will be seeing these growing scattered and in bunches. This is the Cut Leaf Thelypody, Thelypodium lacinatum. These are common where ever there’s a bit of soil between the rocks on the slopes below the rims growing amongst the tumble of massive basalt. I’ve seen these elsewhere growing in other eastside Oregon canyons with similar conditions.
These are members of the Mustard family, prolific seed producers and quite competitive. Another plant that, at least so far, doesn’t venture out into the canyon’s bottomland.
Elegant when it first starts flowering, like so many native annuals and perennials, these start declining while they proceed through their flowering season detracting from their appearance. What do I mean…each spent flower, begins to form its narrow, linear, Mustard seed capsule, quickly maturing its tiny seed and then drying, twisting and browning, while the inflorescence continues to bloom out towards its terminal end. A little messy, yes, but characteristic of these plants. We humans are relatively intolerant of such decline in our garden plants and so generally refuse them admission. Under the local wild conditions, as dry as they are, species tend to either be early flowering, when soil moisture is still most available or those like this that begin to decline before the show is over. Summer drought is a ‘cruel’ taskmaster. There are exceptions to this rule but….

https://oregonflora.org/taxa/index.php?taxon=8778

The Serviceberry: Abundance and Reciprocity in the Natural World, A Review

Robin Wall Kimmerer is a botanist, ecologist, a teacher and a member of the Potawatomi people of the Great Lakes region, from whom she learned her people’s particular world view, one once common amongst many indigenous peoples and in stark contrast to that of our present day dominant culture, which has lead us to powerfully shape our our world today. Her three popular books, “Gathering Moss”, “Braiding Sweetgrass” and her latest, “The Serviceberry”, present to the reader a glimpse into the natural world as seen from this ‘alternative’ world view. All three are enlightening reads and not overly technical. They are ‘invitations’ to see the world from a different perspective. The latest is the smallest, a book barely over 100 pages, with large type and in a small page format…a quick read, unless you pause to give what she presents some additional thought. The best, and the one I read first, is “Braiding Sweetgrass”.  Continue reading

What to Do? What to Do? On the Meaning of One’s Life

High in the Warner Mountains, Mountain Mahogany edging the near rim, looking across to Hart Mountain.

I spend a lot of time these days thinking about the meaning of life, understanding that the purpose of one’s life, is not a singular question, but one of the whole of it. Far too much time is spent with the concerns of one’s individual life; one’s accumulation of wealth, power, accolades, stuff….We are social animals, members of interwoven human groups, but are far more than that. Each of us are an integral part of ALL of the life around us. At the core of the question is who we are and what we ‘should’ do. Given all of the failures and goings on that bombard us today, all of the ‘takers’, abusers of power, the automatic almost banal destruction of the life around us, the losses accumulate and easily overwhelm us. Our’s today is a world of shrinking possibility. Calamity and catastrophes confront us from every direction. What is one to do? Continue reading

The Seat of Awareness: On Plants and What We can Learn from Them

“From the viewpoint of the evolutionary biologist it is reasonable to assume that the sensitive, embodied actions of plants and bacteria are part of the same continuum of perception and action that culminates in our most revered mental attributes. “Mind” may be the result of interacting cells. Mind and body, perceiving and living, are equally self-referring, self-reflexive processes already present in the earliest bacteria.”
Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan, “What is Life?”, 1995

From what do sentience, awareness, consciousness and intelligence come from? Are these capacities a product of an organism’s complexity? At what point does it first appear? is it a property inherent to even the simplest organic chemicals? of peptide chains and amino acids, of atoms themselves?What of the organizing principle that seems to guide embryogenesis, the growth and form of every living individual of every species? Is it in action in the most ‘simple’ interactions between organic chemicals and the energy flowing through them, that favors one form over another and animates those same forms once they meet some critical minimal level of complexity?  Is this evolution towards complexity and ‘awareness’ an inevitability? A product of its component parts and the energies within it? [This is an idea that is separate from the notion of an inevitable ‘progress’ of life, always moving ‘forward’. Progress is a human notion, an assessment and a valuation of the change around us, not a ‘goal’ of natural selection and the animating ‘flux’ of energies within the universe.] Rudimentary awareness must exists at some necessary and basic level in the simplest single celled organisms…even in plants.

I look to that which is shared between all organisms and question the idea of the animal brain, and its neural system, as the basis for these things and its purported absence in plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses and archaea, as lacking in them. The brain itself and associated nervous system is a unique and complex structure present only in ‘higher’ animals. This bias in favor of the brain and neural systems, especially that of the human brain, as the seat of awareness and consciousness, ignores the requirements of any organism. We are biased in our insistence that these capacities must be located in a singular physical organ and no other. A singular occurrence in the universe. A huge conceit on our part, that this capacity exists in us alone, in and organ and tissues we could could physically evaluate, one which we ‘carry’ internally within us as we move freely about. The body, any body, is a vessel which contains life and is shaped by it. Life is both of the body and transcendent, existing beyond it. Life exists within the continuously unfolding moment. Life is not a ‘thing’ so one can hardly expect awareness, consciousness and intelligence to fit neatly into a limited organ, however we define it. The roots of this reach back into the study of evolution, ecology, cell biology, neurobiology, the metabolism and thermodynamics of life and the expanding field of quantum biology.

This latest thought piece has been inspired by three recent books I’ve read, Ed Yong’s, “An Immense World”, Paco Calvo’s, “Planta Sapiens” and Zoe Schlanger’s, “The Light Eaters”. I am not a scientist. I’m a student driven to make sense of this world. The connections and conclusions I make here are mine, although they may be suggested by the writings of others. Continue reading

On Ornamental Trees and the Remaking/Unmaking of Place: Revising the City of Redmond’s Tree List, part 2

How Much to Water?

Recommending trees from climates with significantly wetter growing seasons needs to stop if we are to continue growing our population. Landscapes as designed, and managed, are the single largest user of residential water. Recommending trees which ignore this problem is irresponsible. Lower water use residential landscapes are possible. Local codes and recommendations must, however, reflect this priority.

Additionally, how much to water is a bit of a mystery to all of us and especially so to non-gardeners. How much? How often? Our watering practices should be determined by the local precipitation and the tree’s needs. What is commonly done, however, is that we water for our lawns and that largely determines what our trees receive, unless we have separate drip systems. A tree’s root system doesn’t stay neatly between the lines. They quickly extend out well beyond the span of the tree’s leafy canopy. In many cases even 2-3 times as far, taking up water and nutrients. A roots of a tree, planted in a small bed, adjacent to an irrigated lawn area, will move out into the lawn. A tree isolated in a xeric bed with only a few drip emitters, will quickly demand more than such a meager system affords it and such a tree, if it requires summer moisture, will struggle while competing with its nearby  ground level growing neighbors. Again ‘neighbors’ should share compatible requirements so all can thrive on the same ‘diet’ and moisture regime. Continue reading

On Ornamental Trees and the Remaking/Unmaking of Place: Revising the City of Redmond’s Tree List, Part 1

Perhaps an odd tree to start this with, Juniperus scopulorum ‘Woodward’, is not a ‘shade tree’. It is not deciduous. It is a narrow, fastigiate form of Rocky Mtn. Juniper that, growing to a height of 20′ with a 2′-3′ spread can serve as a formal accent in colder climates like ours as a ‘replacement’ for the more tender Italian Cyperss, and it can do quite well here with very little supplemental water.

Trees, specifically ornamental shade trees, have become an expected and desired part of our urban lives, at least util their leaves fall and await our cleanup. Many associate long tree lined streets and avenues with urban living. Broad Maples. Lofty Elms. Plane Trees and, in tighter spaces, perhaps Cherrys, Crabapples and flowering Plums. Urban trees provide several notable ‘environmental services’ increasing our comfort level with their cooling shade, their capacity to remove pollutants from the air, cover and nesting places for birds and the sequestration of carbon. Trees are generally viewed as a public good, necessary even for our lives. We can get quite emotional about them. So it seems a bit ‘wrong’ to suggest that this ‘ideal’ may not always be ‘best’ or even desirable.

Broadleaved deciduous shade trees are ‘naturally’ members of mesic, temperate to cold-temperate regions of the world. That is where they evolved and where when we plant them out, where they do best. When we begin planting them outside of their historic natural ranges, especially when we ignore the conditions, the disparities and the extremes between their natural ranges and those where we choose to plant them, then we can have some serious problems. The trees may struggle along, or if we remain committed to making up for our local area’s lacking, usually in the form of supplying more water, they can do reasonably well. But this suggests possible real problems as one moves further away from the conditions of a tree’s natural limits and increase the numbers planted out. Where is this water coming from and what are the impacts of removing this water from its normal and healthy cycling of which it is a part? What will be going without? And, is that cost worth the losses it creates? Our selection and planting decisions depend on how we value that which is lost! In short, the typical deciduous shade tree of our imaginings does not belong here in a desert. Continue reading

Crisis Averted and Other Good Books to Help Prepare You (Us) for the Next Pandemic

COVID-19, it’s pandemic, the fumbling attempts to head it off, all of the politicizing, the race to develop a vaccine, its distribution and administration and the curious and potentially disastrous attempts to undermine our confidence today in vaccines proven decades ago or for any disease, seem to be a fact of life today. While public acceptance of advice and programs advocated for by epidemiologists has always been difficult, many of us unknowingly owe our lives to their efforts, efforts that were they not made in years past, would have resulted in a world whose present populace might not be here, or if they were, in significantly compromised health and numbers. That is the nature of an epidemiologist’s life. Public doubt, fear and speculation, their work’s value invisible to the vast majority of us, because of what did not happen. Continue reading

Some Thoughts on Social Media and the Pending Collapse of America

I posted this elsewhere in shorter, less developed form, as a comment on a friend’s post and decided to post it here, more fully, on my page. It describes one of the ways in which I see how our society has strayed off the ‘path’, how we have substituted virtual, social engagements, for direct human engagement with both the place we live and the people and life ‘of’ it. In the process it has helped bring us to the doorstep of a bleak dystopian future. More and more Americans have adopted virtual relationships replacing the real and necessary relationships of healthy communities and a vibrant functional society. We are succumbing to the irresistible siren call of social media’s ‘brave new world’, losing ourselves to the algorithms and machinations of Facebook, Instagram, Tik-Tok and X, the former beast that once was Twitter, each run by megalomainacs of almost unimaginable conceit. These and other lesser known ‘engines’ driving social media prey particularly on our weaknesses as human beings. Their ‘generals’ have taken various social and psychological studies and used them not to heal us, but to take advantage of us for their purposes. Seduced we participate, not just willingly, but enthusiastically, voluntarily becoming entangled without understanding the cost it demands of us. We are caught up in the untested experiment of virtual society that is steering us into a startlingly unpredictable and frightening future. Which is the ‘best’ social media platform? Is there one? Can we ever get what we want/need from any of them? Is there a way out? How do we regain control of our lives? Especially when so many seem perfectly ‘happy’ with the game that consumes them? Unaware and fatalistic?

Our economy and technology are predicated on constant change and the dissatisfaction that we feel in consuming it. It ‘tells’ us that it will satisfy our need, while doing the opposite. The initial flush of excitement we feel, soon dissipates and leaves us hungry for the next. We never find satisfaction. Our consumption is never enough and we are never sufficient in ourselves. While engaged with social media we are continuously under a bombardment of ads, algorithms and various methods of psychological ‘warfare’, prods and judgements and, as a result, we learn that we are insufficient. Social media today has become a ‘need’, a product we consume that promises connection while at the same time it often works to undermine local community, which has been a cornerstone of our species over the entirety of our existence.

It is one thing for us who grew up, having formed our basic personalities, our approach to the world and patterns of thinking, before we adopted computer use and social media which followed. It is very different for those unformed young people who engage with it today, absent these basic social structures and our individual neural networks derived from these relationships. Such a ‘base’ has historically developed over time through the repeated social contacts found throughout local intact, functional, communities. We are as a people today, increasingly, unmoored, more isolated from the people around us, wider society, and the landscape itself. All suffer from this loss. Initially the computer and the evolving internet, was a tool to help us think, an incredible connecting resource, a new tool supporting communication, and it still could be. Much of our contact with it has transformed into a technology that sustains ‘its’ growth, and the profits of those who guide it, while shaping us to meet its ‘needs’. For younger people without an already formed social and neural base, it has begun to determine our relationships, our world outlook, how we view ‘other’ and even determines how we think. Our relationships are increasingly ‘virtual’, selected for us, by a system with its own priorities. It plays a dominant role in the formation of our neural pathways, while direct and local social interaction is minimized, our choices less ours, as the algorithms make them for us.

Neural pathways are shaped in ways analogous to muscles, they form and are reinforced over time through use, or atrophy with its lack. They, in a very real sense, determine or at least limit, the ways in which we each think, help define how and what we think. They set the stage for our imagination and in so doing help determine the limits of possibility. In a world of such dominant social media, what is imaginable, or within our capacity to consider, becomes narrowed down to that of the dominant algorithms. Imagination, perception, our ability to problem solve, our options, all narrow down to fit within the algorithm. In a more open, free, connected society, the possibilities, the solutions are expanded. In a society fully engaged to social media the possible future is narrowed and in our present state, that future is far more dystopian, even apocalyptic. Our brains, particularly those of the young, are thus engineered to fit the algorithm, its possibilities. That which is outside of these pathways, our patterns of thinking, our experience, in a very real way, do not exist to us. The virtual world, the ‘world’ of algorithms, the world outside of our choosing, becomes ‘real’ for us, while the physical, biological world, the world of unimaginable relationships and possibilities, in which we physically exist, upon which we depend for sustenance, shrinks away from our awareness, our concern and our control. More and more begins to simply ‘happen’ to us, beyond our awareness, our control and we yield, not because we must, or because they are no options, but because we have become ‘blinded’ by our consuming relationship with the variously determined realities of social media.

We older adults, are less affected in these ways having pre-established patterns in place, but we aren’t immune to them. In fact we can become very dysfunctional as our more entrenched belief systems, our ways of thinking, our world views, come into continuous conflict with the virtual worlds of social media. We didn’t see this aspect of this powerful technology coming. We don’t ‘understand’ and as we age, many of us tend to retreat from its onslaught. Our internal conflicts can lead us to rebel and reject these technologies in their entirety, along with those who promote its use. Our response often takes the form of rejection and a retreat to an imagined before. Social media impacts each and everyone of us. The sharpening disparities and conflicts very often result in a rejection of the entire ‘package’, the good with the bad…and there is much good that has genuinely benefited society, but the selfish predatory nature of social media in its current form, as it enriches its owners and bestows a level of power on the few this world has never seen before, once again simplifies these questions into a black or white, either/or, all or nothing question. We are overwhelmed with ready access to so much information today, more than any of us can cope with. It is presented with such rapidity and with little attempt to understand it, that it becomes ‘worthless’. We become ‘numbed’ to it and reject it out of hand. These social media corporations do this intentionally, so that they might gain power, as the majority retreats and gives it up. Younger people don’t see this change because they are more fully integrated into social media. Their ‘base’ is different. They have a learned dependence on it which they take for granted, much as do those older of us, whom without examination, cling to our own social conventions of the past. Today we are drowning in information, data and fact. Social media, seductively, both adds to this problem and promises a way out as we increasingly become engaged in our own chosen, individual worlds, looking for a calm in the storm of information. We seek distraction from the confusion of a world that intentionally pushes us into one that intentionally creates chaos.  There appears to be no common thread working to reform and join the disparate parts into coherent, knowable, wholes. The world of social media  has changed us and how we interpret the physical/real world around us and therefore, how we react to it. The physical, organic, living world around us has been likewise confused in the process, so that a disconnected population no longer shares an understanding of its value and our dependence on it. On many days our transformation from organic, living, closely related and dependent beings seems complete as place degrades and that which we need becomes in ever greater demand while also becoming less available. Social media has become instrumental in this process. As life becomes more threatened, as resource scarcity increases, as the ‘threat level’ associated with ‘other’, we look for ever more distraction, the ‘treatment’ we seek, we desire, necessarily more potent and direct as the consequences of our disconnection accumulate. Social media is our collective drug of choice. We have incorporated this technology into our functional being. Physically implanting that technology into our bodies is not a very big ‘next’ step. Some even look forward to it.

In ‘playing’, the social media game we’ve accepted its rules, accepted the ‘role’ it assigns us. How we see our lives, how we define ourselves. Our purpose, is then shaped by the game and we give up a key part of ourselves. Such constant change, its continuous stimulation, our ever increasing dependence upon it, keeps us off balance, dissatisfied and divided. For all of its ‘promises’ to connect us into virtual communities, it leaves us more alone. We are, after all, biological creatures. We are not devices. Not complex loops of algorithms. Social media as promoted, is a disruptor, a weapon. Its potentiality as a tool for the healing of society, its betterment and the more widespread ‘flowering’ of individuals, is unfulfilled. It is in fact actively discouraged by social media platforms today. Their goals do not include our ‘self-actualization’, our fulfillment as human beings pursuing our fullest expression of our unique capacities and abilities. Our use of it gives us a false confidence that we are in control of our lives, that we are fully engaged, but, in doing this, are in fact surrendering an essential part of ourselves, our humanity, to it, in proportion to the degree that we have engaged with it.

Self control, self-actualization, the realization of our ‘dreams’, any sense of fulfillment is found by living one’s life directly, in the physical, organic, living world, with direct consequences, exploring ourselves in the process of attempting, failing, learning and succeeding, independent of abstract, virtual, gate keepers, influencers, marketers and politicians, who would have us look to them for direction and purpose. It is an error to think of one’s virtual community as a viable pathway to a full life, a life of independence. Social media gains power over us as we disengage from our local human community, as we become disconnected from the living world with which we would have otherwise been immersed, as we reject other human beings, members of the larger community, mentors and teachers, collaborators and competitors, surrendering the clear and connected relationships of an active , engaged life, for those chosen, by algorithms and our ‘peers’, choices which, more and more become choices made outside of us, by a collective other.

In doing all of this the owners and developers of these technologies, these ‘services’, have consciously cultivated a dependence on them by we the users. Our need feeds their profits. We come to believe that we must have them. Marketers and advertisers work to package us, to smooth our edges and conflate our desires into one. In contradiction to their pronouncements, they seek less engagement with us. They seek to shape us rather than accommodate our unique qualities. That requires more of them, which translates into more cost, less profit. They are dependent upon our collective and shared desires. They seek to sell us packages they can provide easily and in mass. It is the nature of mass marketing. The individual merged into the masses. Like purveyors of goods and services, social media have taken a similar approach and have created a need, a demand for their service, that absent our engagement with them, would not exist. No one ‘needs’ social media, not like we do air, water, food, shelter direct human relationships, so our commitment to social media requires deeper, long term engagement to establish and sustain our relationship with it and now they have that. As I said above, we don’t really need the supporting technologies implanted in us, we have already chosen the path they’ve made for us. We carry our devices everywhere, readily supplying them with what they need to know about us to perfect their algorithms and cement our relationship to this self-described ‘benefactor’, capable of meeting our every need…as long as they fall within their system’s capacity provide and control it.

The next step is AI. Many are eager to adopt this and give up ever more of what makes us human and unique individuals including the creativity which gives many of us our sense of fulfillment, contentment and joy. In the process we give up another of life’s challenges as we forget what such adoption costs us, the satisfaction, purpose and value, that only comes from effort and doing. Today they are selling effortless creativity, while ignoring the benefits such endeavors provide us, selling us reformulations of the past as our personal inventions. What will they sell us next? What else, that defines us, are we willing to give up?

We are not digital creations. We are analog, animal, organic beings that live in engaged relationships with all others around us, dependent on those points of contact, participants in an economy that joins us to meet our mutual and individual needs. We are social animals, in dependent, voluntary relationships, without which we are far less. We are parts of teams, communities, schools, associations, neighborhoods, professional organizations, individuals with shared interests, necessary relationships that define, support and empower us, without which we are far smaller. Our demands for individual liberty come to nothing without the ‘whole’. Without the collective, without our shared relationships, we are small and lack the capacity to fully realize ourselves. We ignore this at our individual and collective peril. We cannot escape this fact by rejecting those around us and picking and choosing between offered digital alternatives, which themselves exist in a disconnected virtual world…but for our willing participation. We are the seat, collectively, of all power, the goods and services, the benefits associated with any society. Life requires direct relationship in every way and we are ultimately nothing of consequence without it.

Being Transgender: On Gender Dysphoria, Biology, Evolution, Human Survival, and a Look at One Person’s Story

Yesterday, our local book group met to discuss, “Tall Annie: A Life in Two Genders”, with its author and her husband of 18 years. The book is about her often painful, very personal, story of growing up with gender dysphoria, a recognized condition now, but not then, in which a person is born with the genitalia, the physical features of their sex, in conflict with their own gender identity, how they see themselves. These are two separate qualities, one’s physical sex and one’s gender. I won’t get into how one’s physical sex can be intergraded, except to say that an individual, every individual, is born along a continuum between the two poles of being, female and male, some individuals born intersex, with neither male nor female fully formed genitalia, genitalia that may only be partially functional. We are each more or less male or female. Sex and gender are not a simple either/or questions. Continue reading

Mowing Firebreaks Across the Dry Canyon Bottom, Good Idea or No?

Mowing weakens the native plant community and aids the growth of weeds.

Mown adjacent to unmown. Aggressive spreaders will fill in more quickly and because of the weeds already in place, they will sieze a larger proportion of the mown area as they grow and spread.

While recently walking home through the Canyon, last month in December, I noted 8 new  strips, presumably ‘fire breaks’, mown across relatively flat and uniform sections of bottomland, each maybe 50’+ wide, spanning the bottom between the paved eastern path and the the main dirt western bike path. While I understand the thinking here, removing ground level fuels, this is a single purpose treatment that works counter to the Park’s purpose as a natural area preserve. Mowing down the Rabbitbrush, a ruderal, transition species of the Sagebrush Steppe plant community, delays the development of a healthy native plant community and encourages an increased array and density of weeds and invasives. Mowing this way provides open space for weed species already in Dry Canyon, as well as those not yet here, giving them larger ‘launch points’ from which they can spread into the rest of the Canyon. Mowing weakens natives, which are naturally slower to rebound from the damage than the aggressive weed species. Continue reading