Schwarzenegger: Keep Our Beaches Open! Move Towards At Least Commensualistic Symbiosis

Dear Governor Schwarzenneger,

(From John Thomas "Kooz" Kuczmarski)

I'm a strong believer that the purpose of a city should serve Nature. Nature -- wildlife, animals, we homo sapiens ARE Nature -- should be the intention of anything municipal, or city-based. Therefore the idea of actually closing beaches, closing a way for humans to enjoy nature (the ocean and beaches) would be undermining the very purpose of a city.

Do you really think people will stand for not being able to access beaches? Have you any idea how ludicrous that sounds?

I think anyone who believes eliminating parks-nature-Beach funding for the purpose of redirecting those funds to something non-Nature-based needs to re-evaluate their mission, don't you?

If the significance of Nature (the oxygen we breath from the botanical plants of parks) and the body of water that keeps us alive (planet earth ecologically could not survive if it were not for it being covered with over 70% water) is eclipsed, all is lost for EARTH and humans. This sounds extreme and that's because it is. If anything, funding needs to be redirected to opening MORE beaches and parks to remind us homo sapiens that we are just highly-evolved primates, elements of nature and truly do deserve to connect with Nature readily and frequently.

I think one problem with American government is that it HAS too much funding!! IT has so much funding that it redirects it's energies, finances, and time away from the absolute necessities (nature, oxygen, planetary perpetuation and survival).

What would be the result of this situation? What would the HUMAN RACE look like couped up in offices and buildings withotu access to Nature (our origin). To euphemistically refer to the chaos, inhuman treatment, loss of identity, uncertainty of values, drop in wholistic health, and slow disintegration of the third planet from the sun -- Bad things would occur to our planet and humans.

Closing parks is analogous to saying "we dont' need to focus on nature, on beaches, on the very oxygen we breath - the most fundamental survival necessity of us humans, mind you" And that is indirectly saying "it's okay for people to suffocate and die". I wont' go as far as saying that choosing to close beaches is identical to some kind of asphixiation concentration camp -- because that would be extreme -- but I think the analogy does exist there in some form.

For the Health of Homo Sapiens (and other flora and fauna on the planet), I urge you to make the decision to NOT close the beaches and to instead maybe apply funding to actually creating more (instead of less) of an awareness of the Significance of the health of our planet. The Pacific Trash Vortex, for example....that's something more people need to be aware of, in order to stop trash accumulation in the oceans. We're failing as a species, dumping trash into the ocean?! No other species does that.

The very LEAST we can do is keep beaches and parks open to ensure that the deteriorating of our most vital resource -- OUR PLANET -- does not continue.

And we do not possess the earth. The earth does not possess us either (for we can take flight into space and leave earth), but homo sapiens MUST have a MUTUALISTIC relationsihp with the earth and we are failing because The relationship of homo sapiens and Earth has become PARASITIC. We are feeding off and hurting the ecology or our own home (earth) and not giving back. A commensualistic Symbiosis would be better than the Parististic symbiosis that humans currently have with our planet. We Should be having a mutalistic symbiosis but are in fact, having the complete opposite of that.

So again, I urge you, could you try to elevate our already-suffering relationship with the planet from parasitistic to (at the very leaast) commensualistic symbiosis, and direct funds towards cultivating attention TOWARD the necessity of beaches and parks, not away from them?!!!

Thank you!


-- Johnt Thomas "Kooz" Kuczmarski

List of High-Tech Dog Chemistry-Biology Words! Dogs and All the High-Tech Science Biology-Chemical Research

Here's a list of dog chemistry words to make you sound high-tech when discussing things in relation to dogs:

Theobromine. The substance (along with caffeine) in chocolate that makes dogs die if they eat too much of it. Leathal dose is 150mg/1kg of bodyweight but don't push this (great site; uses questions http://www.dogtopics.com/165/7-questions-about-dogs-and-chocolate/)

Antibiotic. A drug that kills, slows, or impedes the growth of bacteria. Typically used in situations like an ear infection.

Penicillin. (I was on the topic of Antibiotic, so wanted to add this).

DHPP

Bortapella

Rabies Vaccination.

Sharks: Aquatically Agog

Here's another factoid about sharks. Sharks are interested; they're the oceanic Curious Georges. If you're ever channel-surfing (and I know you watch television), stop by AnimalPlanet and check-out the pupil dilation of, say, a lion and that of a shark. The lion has a small little dot, an ioata of a miniscule pupil, while the entire sharks' eyes is just one enlarged, gigantic pupil orb. Obviously deeper water sharks have larger eyes compared to surface sharks, but you can't even see the iris (and yes sharks have cornea, retina, iris, and pupil, like we and most vertebrates do) of most sharks because they are so enlarged and inquisitive about their salty world. Look at the way they test out their environment, too; they chomp at an unknown object not out of malice, but sheer curiosity and a systematically inquiring playfulness. Predators of the sea, they may be; but calling a shark a "man-eater" is a major misnomer -- aquatically agog is more like it.

Another cool factoid about sharks: they see slideshows where humans see movies. "The minimum frequency of flashes or images at which an eye can no longer separate [images] is termed flicker fusion frequency" (1). In other words, the typical 24 frames/second rate of movies causes us to see seemless motion and flow of what is really rapidly-fired still frames. Sharks, operating at a 45 flashes/second flicker fusion see a rapid-fire slideshow with distinct, unmoving pictures, where humans see a seemless movie.

Our evolution as more advanced beings basically originates from our capacity to create technology; the earliest being building fires, cooking food, burying the dead, and like. But losing touch with our taxonomical relationship with other animals, as a hominid is asking for serious "de-evolution". A counter-balance must be maintained because technology and nature -- because technology is a great indicator of evolution but nature is the the supreme intelligence, the greatest technology of all.

The first human-like, hominid species is 4.4 million years old, and the oldest homo sapiens are 250,000 to 400,000 years old, and the modern human is 40,000 years old. Compared to sharks, our least evolved ancestor, the Australopithecus afarensis, ape is only 1/90 the age of sharks, and sharks are 1,000 times as old as the modern homo sapien. We can learn alot from the elderly!

As is true for all animal behavior and characteristics, we can take a major message from their clarity. We should embace the constant curiosity of a shark, but balance that by peppering it with stolid vigil of the lion. We, as humans may considered ourselves "more evolved" than lions, tigers, bears, and sharks, oh my(!), but if we forget to learn from the habits of animals, our "evolution" is insubstantial and at best, trivial. Weaving in the behavioral dance and specialties of animals doesn't cause us to devolve, but vivifies our existence.


1. http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/white_shark/vision.htm

A Moralistic Message of Sharks?

Shark attacks are not menacing or threatening in terms of frequency. LIghtning and bicycle crashes kill far more people more frequently. It's the fear that a beast, atleast in the water, seems to be extraordinarily superior to humans is what is so fearful. Not being on top of the food chain, predatory ladder is why there has been so much attention drawn to shaks.
Out of all the man-over-board, sinking ship events -- Titanic, Louisitania, hundreds of others -- the Uranian-carrying, Bomb-component wielding Indianapolis was the single-most largest episode assault by the dinosaur-aged fish of the deep. The July 30, 1945 USS Indianapolis had just delivered crucial Uranium components to the secret base of Tinian, that which would soon make the atomic bomb "Little Boy", which was soon dropped over Hiroshima. The ship, crewed by 1,196, was hit by Japanese submarine commander Hashimoto's torpedo, and sank in 12 minutes. It had just 300 that went down with the ship, but only 316 of the remaining 896 crewmembers were stripped off by frigid waters and sharks. It primarily was the Tiger and the Oceanic White-tip sharks that did the dirty work, chomping off roughly 586 men at a rate of about 100 per day, or a human being consumed every fifteen minutes for 5 days straight.
Is it a coincidence that the vessel that delivered the final component for the single largest destruction devic met such a gruesome fate not brought on by fellow man, but by nature? The sharks operating as so divinely retributional mechanism for delivering the bomb components is debatable, but it certainly is karmically provocative.
Think about it, out of all the SOS shipwrecks scenarios only the boat carrying components for the largest bomb on the planet was paid a serious visit by the 400 million year-old* fully-cartilaginous sea fish. Out of all the abandoned ship stories where sharks could have picked off floating survivors like bobbing for apples at a birthday party, isn't it "ironic" that the ONLY episode of sharks consuming shipwreck survivors occurred off a vessel with a destructive mission (delivering the Bomb components)? Does Nature have a moralistic and gruesome message?


*Very cool side fact: Sharks are 400 million years old. Can you FATHOM how old that is? The oldest human evolutionary chain is 2.5 million years old, meaning that sharks are 160 times older than the oldest hominid evolutionary chain, but the most modern humans are 10,000 years old, making sharks 40,000 times older than modern homo sapiens!! 40,000 times old! jeez! Sharks are 2,000 times as old as neanderthals, which date back as far as 200,000 BP (before present). Therefore, respectively homo habilus, neanderthals, and moder humans are, repsectively 0.6% ( or 1/160), 0.05% (or 1/2,000) , and 0.0025% (or 1/40,000) the age of sharks!!!!