Same Boat Significance

The expression “we're all in the same boat” is a crucial factor in determining whether a group of people pulls together to successfully face a challenge or splinters into factions and fails. When a group—from a handful of people to a full society—coheres, they are able to cooperate with one another to keep the group strong and resilient. Many philosophers, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, have described such a society as one that has created a “social contract.” This term describes an agreement among society members to cooperate with each other and with the government, in order to create benefits for all. Those benefits can be crucial for the society to be able to provide for the welfare of its members.

History has shown that small groups have been more successful than large groups in creating and perpetuating the social contract. This is because a small group of people can actually feel that they are in the same boat. For example, when a band of our hunter-gatherer ancestors faced a crisis such as a flood, a troop of lions, or starvation, they naturally pulled together in order to survive. Additionally, everyone knew everyone... they all were literally in the same boat. That cohesiveness is much harder to sustain in large societies. So Rousseau and other philosophers described how large groups inevitably tend to disintegrate and descend into chaos, when members do not feel as if they are in the same boat.

One unfortunate example of when a large society can develop a strong bond is when its country goes to war. The exterior threat causes them to pull together to defend the homeland. The situation then creates an atmosphere of comradeship, that overpowers internal dissensions. Manipulative political leaders know how to unite the populace, by posing another country or people as a threat. This is often done today, for example, in the context of rallying citizens against immigration.

Throughout history the world has been divided into separate geopolitical states that often engaged in war with each other, either because they saw no reason to feel in the same boat with a neighboring country, or they feared it or wanted it. Now we have a global society linked tightly by commerce and the internet. Our communication abilities keep us closely and instantly connected, and yet fragmentation, competition, and polarization can make us feel that we are not at all in the same boat. While the global community should feel more connected, we in fact are fragmented even more.

Societies like the United States are suffering from a severe case of polarization. Rousseau and his colleagues would recognize this process as the disintegration of the social contract and the danger of descent into chaos. Will current societies be able to bridge the polarizing gaps and show their citizens that they are in the same boat, or will we tread farther down the path of disintegration?

Rousseau’s Covenant

The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed ideas in the 18^th century about the fundamental nature of humans and their societies. While his views on individual human nature were generally optimistic, he was quite pessimistic about the qualities of society. He wrote that, while we are born virtuous and free, civilization will inevitably make our lives unpleasant. The opening statement of his famous work, On the Social Contract, reflects this sentiment: “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.”

Much of Rousseau's philosophical work was about how to counteract society's and governments’ harmful influence on each of us. His concept of the “social contract” was a way protect our freedom. It is basically a covenant between the populous and the government which assures that citizens have the ability and right to rein in government, when it threatens to break that contract. Such a well-ordered society cannot endure, however, if there does not exist some kind of common will of the people. There needs to be some cohesion among citizens… some coming ground. Once citizens begin to fragment, however, they will lose their authority and their control, allowing the government to seize power and begin to violate the general will and harm the populace.

Whatever kind of regime is established—that is, whatever form of government is created—in order to be legitimate it must implement the will of the people, by creating a just society that provides for the common good. In this manner the government becomes the executive, while the people are literally sovereign. In fact, the people should be the source of laws that govern society... because those laws must be formulated in the interest of citizens. If instead, the government makes laws, then the people ought to have the authority to accept or reject them. The critical point is that the government should be implementing the will of the people—not dominating or controlling it.

The USA Constitution enshrines this concept by its very opening words: “We the people of the United States...” The Constitution goes on to define the government as being formed into three balanced branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Yet the core of the Constitution is the concept that all three branches must still be subservient to the will and welfare of the people. It is, after all, “We the people…"

Rousseau was concerned—if not convinced—that governments so justly conceived, will inevitably violate that contract by seizing inordinate power and responding chiefly to the desires of the rich and powerful. I think one could make a good argument that that is exactly what is happening in the US today. Things are out of balance. The needs and welfare of the people are being disregarded by the rich and powerful in Washington, DC, as well as in state capitals across the country.

Eudaemonia Endeavors

The ancient Greek philosophers wrote a lot and argued a lot about how one should live a good life. The topic was and is quite controversial, because there is much disagreement on what is meant by the good life, let alone how to go about achieving it. One person's definition of the good life can be very different from another's. It can mean, for example, possessing an abundance of things, having power, being famous, being loved, eating fantastic food, traveling to exotic places, going to Broadway shows, or countless other experiences. But it can also mean living a simple life wherein one does’t require lots of possessions to thrive. 

One thing that the arguing Greek philosophers pretty much did agree on was that fulfilling one's desires can lead to happiness, and being happy can help one to feel like they've achieved the good life. But the English word “happiness” falls well short of the Greek word they used: eudaemonia. Being happy refers to a feeling of pleasure or contentment. Those are transitory feelings. Eudaemonia describes an enduring state of being, which is better translated as living a fulfilled life, as realizing one's full potential, as flourishing, or as thriving. Eudaemonia goes well beyond just happiness.

So, OK, if realizing one's full potential or flourishing is what the Greeks could agree upon, there's still the disagreement over how to get there. They may have seen eye to eye on the end point, but what about the means? We each have our own path; our own means—based on our predilections and experiences. Some people have insatiable desires and others opt to keep them simple.

Socrates had a lot to say about how to achieve the good life, and he was on the side of keeping our desires simple. Why choose the simple path? He posited three reasons: (1) since simple desires are easier to attain, it's easier to reach eudaemonia; you don't have to work as hard at it, (2) those who have many and exorbitant desires must expend much effort and energy to get them and then they are constantly fretting about how to hold onto their possessions… that’s neither a peaceful nor a contented life, and (3) those who pursue many lavish desires leave little for the poor and disadvantaged, denying them any chance of flourishing. Thus the simple life is better for the self and for everyone. There is enough to go around—even to offer the good life—for everyone.

So simplicity not only offers me a better chance at acquiring eudaemonia, it also give the less fortunate a better chance. Logical and straightforward advice from ancient Greece, that remains relevant today.

Domesticated Friends’ Feelings—Part 2

People notice that when they're feeling down, their dog will often come to them, put its head on their knee, and appear to offer comfort. Is this empathy? They do sense when we are down (or most any other mood we have), but again we do not know what's in their head. We must be careful not to project our emotions onto them.

Do dogs feel fear, panic, or grief? Yes, they appear to display these emotions, but probably not the same way we do. They are most likely to experience “isolation distress,” given that they are social critters. They often don't feel safe alone—especially if they had an abandonment episode as a puppy. They feel distress mostly in the moment, but it can turn to long-term anxiety, if it's repeated.  Cats—having descended from an African wildcat—are solitary creatures. They are not as social as dogs and do not need the comfort of closeness, as do dogs.

A big question we humans often have about dogs is, what is their sense of time? There is a belief that if a dog is home alone for an hour or six hours, that it cannot tell the difference. Once again, we cannot get inside their head to be sure, but their response to the passage of time is based more upon the routine that they experience. If a dog is left alone—outside its daily routine—it may panic, after some time has passed. This response seems to be tied to their gradual loss of your scent. 

Dogs do have an exquisite sense of timing when it comes to their being fed. If feeding time is very regular, their digestive system will sync with that schedule, and they will know when a meal is due—almost to the minute. Cats are more content to be on their own. They want to be aware of their owner's presence, but they rarely long for absent owners, the way dogs do.

How good is the memory of a dog or cat? That's a hard one to test. Traumatic experiences are remembered. Dogs especially settle into a routine, that seems as if it's driven by memory. Cats and dogs retain memories—but they are primarily episodic in nature. They retain memories that help them to keep away from trouble or that help them to gain an advantage, but we have little understanding as to their long-term memories.

Do dogs feel rage? They have the same mammalian limbic system that we do, so they have the same four responses to a threat: (1) fight, (2) flight, (3) fawn, or (4) freeze; and those behaviors can be readily observed. What causes them to choose to fight? Fear is the driver, and they show it by panting, lowering their tail, and laying their ears back. Different breeds respond differently.

What do dogs and cats seek in life? Dogs are focused on (1) somewhere to live, (2) something to do (especially working breeds), (3) someone to get close to, and (4) something to look forward to (although they seem to have little concept of the future). Cats share some of these same needs, but mostly they appear to want just to be safe and happy.

Researchers have been able to learn more about the feelings and emotions of dogs than cats, because a dog can be placed in a laboratory setting and will cooperate with activities there. They have even been trained to lie still inside a noisy MRI machine, as their brains are being scanned… no way with cats. Cats are territorial and self-possessed (even rather imperious). They are not likely to cooperate in a lab—away from home. Cats follow their own nature. The ancient Egyptians responded to the lordly attitude of cats by worshipping them.

So those are some of the results of current research of emotions of dogs and cats. We may not be able to talk with them about their emotions, but scientific studies are breaking into new territory that is increasingly delving into the minds of our four-footed friends. The results of these studies can help us verify some of our beliefs about their thoughts and emotions, as well as help us to discard our erroneous impressions. That will help us to better understand these critters—and understanding is a main pillar of love. The more we understand each other, the better we can focus our care—which leads to healthier relationships.

Domesticated Friends’ Feelings—Part 1 (2/3/22)

Most people who have chosen to dwell with a non-human friend have selected a dog and/or a cat. While there are many other kinds of pets that people have—and some of them are pretty bizarre—it's our canine and feline friends that are the overwhelming favorite. People develop very close and loving relationships with their dogs and cats. The impact of COVID has often deepened those ties, as many people who have spent more time at home have opted to get a pet. They find their lives increasingly intertwined with their four-footed friends.

Thus, many people have been pondering their relationship with their cat or dog, as those pets have come to play a major role in their lives. They are asking questions like, I love my dog, but does he love me? I remember cute things he did as a puppy... can he remember them? Does my cat feel grateful for my care? It seems that Fluffy has been subdued lately... is she depressed? Fido's antics make me laugh at times... does he think of these things as funny, or does he have his own way of chuckling over them? Around meal time Fluffy gets real friendly... is she cozying up to me because she loves me or to be sure she gets fed? Fido seems to be rather reserved since I scolded him for chewing on my shoe... is he feeling guilty? I've been feeling down ever since I had some bad news about my brother... is Fluffy hanging around to console me?

These and many similar kinds of questions have been pondered for ages by humans about their four-footed friends. Since these animals cannot talk to us and express their feelings, we have little idea of their thinking processes. It's tough enough to figure out how another human being is thinking. There certainly is a lot of wishful thinking about the feelings and thoughts of animals, so we tend to project onto them our emotions; but is there any validity for doing so? Some of these questions are currently being examined and answered by researchers who conduct increasingly clever experiments on animals. 

A lot of insight has been gained about how humans are thinking, by employing various kinds of brain scans. These experiments do not need to rely on people explaining their thoughts and feelings—and that's helpful, because people's explanations of their feelings are often biased or in error, due to their subjectivity. That complication can be avoided by going straight to brain scans. These same kinds of scans are being used on animals—especially mammals, whose brains are rather similar to ours. A leading dog neuroscientist says that humans and dogs (and presumably cats) share seven mammal emotions: fear, rage, lust, seeking (what do they want?), panic/grief, care, and play. So, what are some of the insights coming from this research about how dogs and cats think and feel? 

Dogs love to amuse us. They like it when we laugh and smile, but can they understand what's behind our joy? It seems to us as if they are laughing when they are panting and playful; when they do, their stress level does decrease, and their tail wags. Do they smile, if not laugh? That's an unknown. Some people think they can see their dog smile, but that’s a breed-specific thing. 

Does our dog care about us and love us? They certainly do not have the same emotions as we do; or their intensity. For example, when a dog is rehomed, it quickly adapts to its new environment. It may be attached to us, but not so attached that it cannot take to a new owner. Yet research has shown that a dog gets and oxytocin hit from close, cuddly contact—just as we do. They also care very much for shelter, care, and food. The bigger question here is not so much what loving emotion may be in their head, but what's going on in ours when we observe them. 

Cats will follow us around, rubbing against us and emitting cute sounds. Is this love or care? They may want to be close—even to sleep with you, but they rarely want to be picked up and hugged. Yes, they can be very friendly, but it's most often about getting fed, not displaying love.

More on cats’ and dogs’ feelings next time…

Imbolc Incident

It is the last week of January—which to my mind can be the epitome of the doldrums of winter. Well, maybe not the worst of it. The worst is more like late February, when I become very disheartened, because winter seems to be interminably stuck and refuses to yield to spring. 

What we experience in late January or early February is the cross-quarter day called Imbolc. It is a Celtic day of observation that falls halfway between winter solstice and spring equinox. The solstices and equinoxes occur at precise astronomical dates, which designate when the Earth is at a specific location in its orbit around the sun. Their timing is known; even to the exact minute. The cross-quarter days, however, are imprecise, because their timing depends on local weather; thus Imbolc, for example, falls on about February 1, or maybe a few days on either side.

Imbolc's significance is that it signals the very first signs of the quickening of life in the spring. While we may look around and see no discernible change at this time of year, plants and animals at Imbolc time sense the change coming on and begin to stir. Deep underground, seeds begin to swell, getting ready to pop open. Cows begin to lactate again (Imbolc means “with milk”). While we humans can watch the calendar and note that cross quarter time is here, animals and plants sense it. 

I heard a great example this morning that showed me that Imbolc had arrived—even though the weather lately has been extremely cold and snow coats the ground. I was having no thoughts of spring—only my lamentations over the frigid conditions. Stepping outside, I heard the call of a titmouse. I immediately stopped and listened. Was I really hearing a titmouse call in late January? These birds call in spring, during mating season, and occasionally during the summer—but never in fall or winter. They might chatter scoldingly on frigid days, but they do not sing.

That's what halted me so abruptly. I had not heard a titmouse call for five months or more. Was I imagining it? No, the call came again. It was way off in the woods. An hour or so later I heard the call yet again—this time from another direction, again off in the woods. That told me that the first call did not come from an addled bird, who was maybe suffering from hypothermia. This was another titmouse. I later heard a third... then a fourth.

Why this untimely singing, on such a frigid morning? The sole explanation I could come up with was they were responding to Imbolc. Something was stirring deep in the breast of these birds—a primeval urge that the earliest hints of spring were causing. I wondered if underground seeds might also be showing the slightest hint of swelling—getting ready for the new year. I would remain ignorant about that, however, since the ground is coated with a thick, ice-covered coat of snow. Icy winter is in no hurry to depart, but that first sign of spring is here!

Fungi Functions

Fungi are one of the most fascinating life forms on Earth—as well as one of the most important. They can be unicellular (like yeasts and molds) or multicellular (like mushrooms). They constitute their own taxonomical kingdom, unique to all other life forms, although they are more closely related to animals than plants.

Some of the most valuable fungi are those that form a symbiotic relationship with plants—especially trees. Fungi do not contain chlorophyll, so they cannot make their own food, which is why they have created a mutually beneficial bond with plants. They receive food (in the form of sugars) from plants and provide valuable services in return.

Fungi are vital for the existence of trees. They decompose dead leaves into compost— creating invaluable nitrogen in the process. Fungi absorb chemicals and pollutants such as heavy metals—thus protecting trees. They accumulate water, helping trees to survive droughts. They produce hormones that encourage new root tips, thereby controlling a tree's growth. Trees communicate with each other through their roots, using fungi to link them in shared networks (sometimes called the “wood wide web”).

In a healthy forest there is a wide variety of tree and fungi species, so they mix and match. If one species of fungus dies, trees will search for another species. Likewise, if a species of tree dies, fungi will search for another kind of tree to link to. When humans disturb a forest, these exquisitely balanced symbiotic relationships can become severed—harming both trees and fungi, and thus the health of the woods.

Underground fungal networks can be huge. They can span thousands of acres. The total length of mycelium (the stringy underground part of the fungus, containing fine white filaments) in the top few inches of forest soil is some 270 quadrillion miles (450 quadrillion km) long—which is about half the width of our galaxy! One forest fungi in Oregon is about 2400 years old and weighs over 600 tons! Some one-third to one-half of all the living mass in soils is fungi. That’s pretty heavy-duty importance!

So, why should we be aware of—let alone concerned with—the millions-of-years-old cooperative relationship between fungi and plants? To begin with, that relationship and its crucial importance to the health of the ecosystem is being threatened by human activity. If this symbiotic dependence is broken, neither trees nor fungi will fare well. They cannot thrive—or even survive—on their own.

How are we humans disturbing this delicate balance? When logging operations invade a forest, that symmetry is destroyed. Clear-cutting an area of trees isolates the fungi, which cannot exist alone. The remaining fungi and trees become ill. Monocropping destroys the balance between numerous kinds of fungi and plants. Some one-third to one-half of the living mass of healthy soils is fungi. By damaging either plants or the fungi, that balance is destroyed. 

One scientific projection estimates that, by 2050, more than 90% of the planet's soil will be degraded, if we don't change our ways. By focusing our attention on above-ground ecosystems, we are in danger of ignoring the below-ground role of fungi. We are upsetting a balance that has been established for 500 million years.