Why We Need Wasps

There is a stock conversation, which most of us participate at some point, the purpose of which is to ascertain the existence of a completely superfluous entity of flora or fauna in the hope of denying its very right to exist.

Recently I got into this very debate about wasps. They're pointless, right? Someone asked me recently.

An innocent enquiry that betrays a human inability to see the worth of an animal unless it has some form of obvious employment (cow) or a high aesthetic value (peacock). And without obvious form of employment the event of its non-existence doesn't upset the equilibrium of the world.

Wasps don't make honey after all.

And herein is the egoism that a species must have an employment which benefits human-kind.

The absenting of wasps from the eco-system would of course, if not apparently, upset the balance of the natural order. But if it's human application we're looking for:

Wasps are a natural pesticidal. They eat many parasites which feed on our crops. Without wasps we would require more pesticides on our crops; that would mean more toxic chemicals on the skins of our apples and carrots, ergo our bodies.

Without wasps we would be devoid of another of life's poetic sequences too: That the fig must be pollinated by a female wasp. In order to pollinate the fig, the female wasp enters the fig flower and loses its wings in this floral labyrinth; it has no means of turning back. It dies, there, of loneliness. A fig fruit is created.

Without wasps there would be no figs; no fig trees left in spite of their Biblical precedence. No leaves to disguise man's original sin.

Sementivae Update - Update Your Bookmarks

A friend once quipped that using the resource-draining Internet to harp on about harpooning and environmental catastrophe is hypocritical.

The same could be said of a pro-environmental book. It too wastes resources - trees, pulping, printing, (usually) a supply greater than demand etc. We wastrels can only hope that our environmental endeavours are more valuable to the planet's welfare than the initial outlay.

In the hope, or belief, that I can recoup more than - through this blog - what's wasted (and watts wasted) I have invested in the domain name www.sementivae.com

Actually, my wife invested in it on my behalf. Very astutely she (metaphorically) swam against the current of my dispassion over acquiring www.sementivae.com by appealing that it is one of the very few single-word domain names left unmolested in the great expanse of the Internet.

Because of she-who-must-be-obeyed's meddling, you will now need to update your bookmarks for this site to http://www.sementivae.com (the old address will still redirect here, nonetheless).

Hopefully it will give Sementivae the air of professionalism that can only be attained through independence from blogspot's urls.

The Worst of All Possible Worlds

In Voltaire's riotously funny novella Candide, the object of ridicule, Dr. Pangloss espouses that we live in the best of all possible worlds. Modelled on the lampooned philosopher Leibniz, Pangloss reasons:

It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles.

The novella's protagonist, Candide, a student of Pangloss experiences a journey through hardships that lead him to reject Pangloss' theory of optimism.

The debate in literary and philosophical circles is whether Voltaire was, conversely, advocating pessimism - or, simply, a pragmatic view of the world.

I have myself wondered - of the Planet in its current mode, of developed society in its current mode - whether we occupy the worst of all possible worlds.

That is to say, in a 21st Century developed society, our raison d'etre seems twofold. To live, as it were, (1) to not be sued and (2) to act and legislate as if the worst possible outcome will happen. The latter ostensibly legitimising the former, or vice versa.

I learned recently from a friend that an old Willow in Blackheath by the pond had been uprooted for 'Elf & Safety reasons. The reasoning behind the council's mission to uproot this lovely, inoffensive willow was that someone may trip over the overground roots of the tree, injure themselves and seek compensation from the authorities for their failure to vanquish the errant tree.

For fear of being sued, a thing of natural beauty has been destroyed. The world is a little uglier.

And with regards to preparing for the worst possible outcome I remember at a workplace we had an intruder. Someone high on drugs went on an intoxicated rampage throughout the workplace. In response to this, one office in the workplace cordoned off its main entrance and insisted that all staff access the office via a secondary, more remote, less convenient door.

This practice continued for some months, until the impracticality of this detour was realised. I ascribe this to simple lack of common sense. That was the one and only intoxicated rampage that occurred in that workplace, ever.

Common sense would have decreed the unlikelihood of that random event being repeated. The irrational fear is borne from employers acknowledging the odds-against chance of the event reoccurring and being sacked or prosecuted for not taking the safety of the workforce into consideration. Thus daft little gestures such as sectioning off the main access door suffice in case the event repeats itself. I did something.

It's much like those who refuse to fly immediately after hearing the report of an airline crash on the news. Actually, this would be the safest time to fly. Probability-wise it is unlikely that two planes are going to have unrelated but similar accidents in a short space of time.

But I am not criticising the aviation-abstainers, far from it. They have been introduced by way of example only.

Who I am criticising are the employers, the authorities who make life as miserable for the sake of protecting their jobs, their salaries, their legal freedom.

To illustrate a point this is one of those mad health and safety mandates requesting that an elderly gardener, June Turnbull, who cares for the flowers in a village in Wiltshire, has been ordered to wear a fluorescent jacket and place signs around her so as to satisfy 'Elf & Safety demands.

So the innocent pleasure and pastime of an elderly woman, and the upkeep of flora and fauna in Wiltshire village, are second to the off-chance that June Turnbull will be flattened by a stampede of sabre-toothed tigers whose ferocious attacks can only be repelled by one object known to man - the fluorescent jacket.

Aside from documenting my general loathing of Health & Safety and Political Correctness, my reasoning for writing this is to return to the argument that nature is best left to its own devices. If there are trees with exposed roots, then nature will favour he who is vigilant of exposed tree roots.

Take this Health and Safety nonsense to its logical conclusion: Should all land be flattened out so no one trips? Should we have no jagged or sharp branches lest someone is cut? Should we have no fig trees lest they encourage wasp nests and increase the chances of wasp stings? Should we chisel down all mountains so no one falls off them? Should we erect posts at every one meter to sign every potential danger within that radius? File down a lion's teeth so that it poses no danger to tourists on safari?

Terraforming, according to Health & Safety regulations, would lead to a dull, bland, tamed world. What is worse is that this Healthier, Safer world provides no benefits to anyone except the stupid and luckless. To all else, it is the making of the worst of all possible worlds.

I personally would rather have that willow tree and risk cracking my head open falling over its roots.

Zen At War?

I have in my hands a book called Zen At War. Not read anything of it except the blurb, which goes: "Zen At War challenges Buddhists to think through the ethical consequences of venerated doctrines and examine them in light of the Buddha's original teachings". The cover art depicts Japanese military manoeuvres, implying a contrary violence.

The author's name is Brian Daizen Victoria, and his biography reveals that he is a Soto Zen priest.

I will be interested to read this book as it is my opinion that Zen is no more Buddhism than Protestant Christianity is Sufi Islam, though both have a definite point of historical confluence.