Another Man's War, by Sam Childers

I downloaded Sam’s book after re-reading some of Christopher Hitchens’ texts when he sadly passed away in December last year. I was never a great fan of “Hitch” as I felt he found more joy in provoking crazy Christians than actually moving the issue forward and I found Richard Dawkins dry humor more powerful. Please have a look at Hitchens in action here: http://bit.ly/z2EIM4

Still Hitchen was a healthy counter balance to the mad anti intellectual religious fanatics in the US, but I felt I needed some balance to the sometime “theoretical” approach so I wanted to find the best fanatic I could find, and I found Sam Childers. It took me a long time to read it as it is not really my kind of book, but trying new things is healthy.

It would probably have been good for Sam Childers to encounter someone like Hitchens, as he had the same kind of raw energy that Childers also seem to have. But while Childers have brute force as a fanatic, Hitchen had it in intellectual sharpness focused on individual responsibility.

Now to the book:

The book is interesting as it can be read in at least four ways: 1. A story about a person coming from a very difficult background can change life path 2. A story about change and tools used to ensure change 3. A story about a foot soldier that do not know/understand the broader context or the long-term 4. A story about an American Taliban that pulls no punches and how western society reacts to it.

1. From the first perspective it is an optimistic book. Sam came from a background that is really horrible and that someone so young can experience the things Sam did (and did the things he did to others) should make us all ask ourselves what priorities we should have in society. Still Sam managed to get out of his situation with drugs and violence. To move from a situation where he was living hurting innocent people he found himself in a situation where he wanted to help vulnerable children. This is the positive side of the story, unfortunately it is very little discussion about how he came to the decision. Sam use god to explain most of his actions so we never really get to know his thinking.

2. The world lost a violent drug addict and got a violent “machinegun preacher”. Would it been possible for Sam to find a more peaceful path, and if he did would it have become a path where he got recognition and support the way he got now? Why are there so few books and even fewer Hollywood movies about those using peaceful means to solve important challenges? There are many doing much more important work and that are more brave than Sam, but as they are not violent or “charismatic” for media they get little attention.

Still there are parts in the book that are very interesting. As Sam comes in with fresh eyes he becomes frustrated with institutional hypocrisy than many of those working tend to forget/ignore/suppress. He mention everything from how the US focus more on access to oil than peace and how many NGO’s focus on what the media wants in desperate attempts to get a message out.

3. One thing that is fascinating is that Sam wants his world simple and black and white. He even writes that he likes war. As an example he writes the following “One of the reasons I like war is that you don’t find many people arguing on the battle field”. While many NGOs, business and policy makers argue way too much, the other extreme is even more dangerous. The fact that so many support what Sam is doing is quite freighting. I would expect some groups to help him and show how he can use his energy and focus to deliver results in a way that is not based on violence (would be nice if it could be based on compassion instead of faith in god, but that might be too much to hope for).

4. I think it is healthy with a book about an American Taliban that is almost as mad as the terrorists that use violence to spread fear and realize that so many people do not see the double standard. Obviously he is not doing anything different compared with many governments (engaging in assassinations around the world), but still it should trigger some discussions about ways to approach challenges.

The problem is not Sam Childers, the problem is a world where those with the resources are not guided by care for people or the planet, but by short-term economic interests.

After reading the book I could not decide what of the four ways I fund most interesting and I’m happy I read this book, and it made me happy that we don’t have more fanatics than we have. It must be tempting to hide behind a god and even though many horrible things happen this book made me realize that we are lucky to live in a time when not believing in old scriptures and explore paths with intuition and science is perfectly OK.

"To fight the darkness do not draw your sword, light a candle" - Zarathustra

What’s going on in there, by Lise Eliot

A very good book that could have been a classic that forever ended the simplistic nature-nurture discussion and brought brain research into the mainstream discussion. But while the book is really good it suffers from a little too much speculation, lack of footnotes, general opinions and simplicity, especially in the end, so it did not make it all the way (my guess it was a compromise from Lise to make the publishers happy and if that was the price to get the book out it was a small price to pay). Still, and I want to emphasize this, it is one of the best booked in the area I have read and strongly recommend people to read it. I hope Lise will get the time/resources to write a follow-up to this where she can dig deeper into the nature-nurture interaction and what brain-mind development in the 21st century could bring and what we need to think about.

Initially it was the subtitle that first caught my attention “How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life”. Not just mind, not just brain, but brain and mind.

In the first chapters Lise gives one of the best overviews of the nature-nurture situation from the brains perspective I have read and show how meaningless any polarization is. The fact that nature and nurture interact is extremely well described with the physical development of the brain in relation to very early nature-nurture interaction.

Then the different senses are presented and as a brain researcher she obviously do not stop with the five classical senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch) but also the others that are important for the brain to understand the world, e.g. balance, acceleration, temperature and the kinesthetic sense.

I would have liked to see a discussion about the inner sense also: such as the suffocation sense though the peripheral chemoreceptors that react when the CO2 levels are too high in the brain. I’m interested in this, as I have had an idea that we should be able to connect this sense to the outside world in some way.

The discussion about intelligence and what affects it during the development of the brain is interesting, but I would have liked to see a more comprehensive discussion about different aspects and how they relate to different aspects of the brain development. But even more I lack a discussion about emotional/ethical development (especially in relation to the strong focus in society in simple intelligence as measured by IQ).

In the end the book drifts into the “how to make your child a genius” and general discussions about classical music and other tabloid discussions without really helping very much.

One area that I really would like to explore further is the possibility to link one or more of our inner senses to virtual “bodies/sensors” outside. It would be very interesting to know what would happen if future generations can learn to connect and control things in the outside with the brain from an early age with an interface that the child will see as a part of its own body. To use the connected sensors to become part of a global body

I would like to try it myself, and a small group that is interested, to take the concept of “global citizens” to a new level. Then based on the experience discuss how society could look like if we expanded our senses and also what the difference would be if the brain was adopted to such sensors from the beginning.

If animals (including humans) suffer we would feel pain, and if they thrive we would get positive feedback (maybe the kind of sensation one get from a Bach sonata?). The intensity and duration for the feelings in order for the body/mind to feel encouraged to address these challenges will be interesting to explore. And also how such feedback would impact the ethical development and priorities. The time aspect is particularly challenging as much of the destruction of the planet is happening slowly, and how we can connect to that and feel improvement and lack of progress would be important to address.

Green is the New Red, by Will Potter

This is an important book and I hope it will be widely read by people who claim that they think about social development and what tomorrow might look like. Through Will’s book we get both an inside/personal perspective and an outside perspective at the same time. It is very seldom authors can bring themselves in and out of the story in a way that helps the narrative instead of putting themselves first. My guess is that Will’s passion to understand the situation is larger than his ego (something that I hardly ever see in journalists writing books, and Will even discusses his dual, or even triple, nature as a human being, journalist and activist).

I many ways I would have liked to see a more “academic” book where the links between the McCarthy era and the current era was discussed in more detail, but maybe that is a future book after the current witch-hunt is over? In the same way as many organizations behind the tobacco lobby have re-emerged as climate skeptics it would be interesting to see more concrete examples of patterns and political links rather than mainly anecdotal discussions.

One interesting thing that seldom is discussed is that much of this new radical thinking described in the book and that is now starting to challenge the mainstream was developed during the 80’s when the neoliberal/neoconservative agenda with Regan/Thatcherism as figure heads dominated much of the public discussion. Building on deep-ecology, developed by Naess and other thinkers, groups begun to take action against oppression against life and nature.

The fact that a new agenda was formed outside existing organizations and that almost no organizations that today "represent" animals and nature relate to "a deep green agenda" should be discussed more. In fact most animal rights groups, environmental groups, feminist groups, etc are only partly inspired by the post-industrial thinking, and most of the large organization today are more focused on a simplistic perspective and this simplicity seem to grow increasingly stronger.

Today most mainstream groups mainly focus on incremental improvements in existing systems, but even more problematic is that they use and develop tools that are fundamentally destructive like offsetting, ecosystem services, ranking of “best companies” in fundamentally unsustainable sectors, etc.

These groups often try to put a monetary price on things that clearly should be kept outside a speculative economy. Such tools can, in the best case, be used to challenge the current systems, but is often promoted as solutions without any understanding of the broader implications.

The willingness since the 80’s among elected politicians to hand over almost everything to large for-profit companies and surrender any vision about the future have frustrated many. Now almost 30 years later there is still no new narrative and many policy makers are even more lost today than they where back in the 80’s. The fact that GDP and the financial sector are still in the center of the public debate is both sad and surprising. GDP/financial sector are old tools that can be used for good, but they easily turn destructive without a a broader context and direction.

Maybe this sense of loss, when it comes to a vision of the future, is the underlying factor that radical environmental and animal right activists are labeled terrorists? These activists represent something that has value and is worth fighting for (beyond a financial return) and that can guide the creation of a society that a growing number of people want to help realize.

In the same way as religious fanatics represent values from a time we have left behind (hopefully) the environmental and animal right groups represent both a radical departure from the current industrial economy, and a natural ethical continuation of a sphere of ethics/empathy that not only include all different living human beings, but also other living beings, nature and future generations.

The book is interesting as it describes how our current society reacts with strong emotions regarding those with values that cannot be bought and are difficult to discipline with ordinary tools. People that do not consume their way to happiness and that challenge the very basic assumptions that most institutions are built on (the right to treat animals in any way we want, to see nature as something that we should tame/use as we like, that more consumption is good, etc) are a major threat.

The fact that the labeling of groups fighting for an expansion of the ethical sphere is so little discussed is strange as it should have lawyers and journalists crawling all over it as it is about freedom of speech as well as the right to publish sensitive information and protect sources.

The lack of discussion, especially among academics and investigative journalists when it comes to the right to create a world based on values that is taking the current trend of expanding the ethical sphere, is something that should be explored further.

Beside being a really well written and interesting book, Will also has a webpage that is well worth visiting: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/

Operation Bite Back, by Dean Kuipers

Very interesting book, although I find the subheading “Rod Coronado's War to Save American Wilderness” quite misleading. I guess the “marketing people” thought it sounded better than ‘Rod Coronado inner journey as seen from the outside”… But that is what the book is, and it is an interesting journey that is well told by Dean Kuipers. The book is especially interesting as Dean has followed Rod for a very long time and might actually have a better idea what Rod has been up to and what has shaped him than Rod himself in many cases. In a society obsessed with changes over days, or even hours, a journey over many years is refreshing.

Equally interesting is that we follow a person though a time where the idea of “deep-ecology” begun to move beyond academic papers. During a time where technology existed for the first time in human history that could allow everyone on the planet to live a good life and at the same time society used its tools to create a situation where about one billion is staring and one billion (and growing) is suffering from eating too much (overweight and obesity). Where the need to sacrifice animals is difficult to defend with rational arguments.

A person who in some way becomes a symbol for a larger movement will always be impossible to capture in full as the symbol is given its value though many different interpretations and a certain degree of mystique. Through Deans book we are given the opportunity to almost walk in Rod’s footsteps over a number of years and think about what made him make different choices, but also what it might have looked like from the outside to FBI and others.

What is right and wrong is not directly analyzed in a way that provide any concrete answers, but the book describe many choices both from a direct “result” perspective (often from Rod’s own discussions) as well as the broader strategic choices where the broader trends is discussed though the relation rod have with different groups in society. The fact that the book deals with very controversial issues without simplifying them into black and white

In the book I particularly liked the longer more “boring” parts where Rod is running “away” without a clear target and goal, trying to figure out where to go next. Too often these kinds of books move between actions and sex/personal intimate details and show nothing of the long times in between.

With the current legislation in the US moving into dangerous madness with the “Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act”, both the people and structures behind are important to understand.

I this book benefit when read before/after “Green Is the New Red”, by Will Potter, or some other book that look at the process from a broader perspective and not from a single individuals stand point. The book is also a good read before/after watching “If a Tree Falls” that look at the situation from Daniel McGowan’s perspective/situation.

PS I like “If a tree falls” in many ways and I hope it will get an Oscar. But it is not really about the ELF or the radical environmental movement, even if the filmmakers say that. That story is much more complex and require a very different film. This movie is a contribution to a discussion about what drives a person to do certain things, including actions that look like “terrorism” from one perspective and the only option left from another perspective. That is well worth a movie and might even be an important first step before “ordinary” people can understand different reactions against aggressive industrialization.

Building a Bridge to the 18th Century, by Neil Postman

The book “Building a Bridge to the 18th Century”, with the subtitle “How the Past Can Improve Our Future” is really refreshing to read. Postman is a person who dares to take a step back and question even fundamental assumptions about progress. He does not even care about the desperate editorials/experts that try to say that we are heading the right direction, Postman discuss something much more fundamental. He asks what we are really want and in many ways he is revisiting a romantic movement where passion and feelings where more important than measurable results and logic. He does fall into the trap of simplistic criticism of technology and is a little too self-loving when he explains how little how knows about technology. I think it must be frustrating to see a world you don’t like and do not understand, so those parts can be ignored.

He’s flirt with religion however I don’t understand. That makes many of his argument vague and/or irrelevant. If he would have dared to take the book beyond religion it would have forced him to push the logic the whole way and come to conclusions in some key areas. I actually think this would have been one of the most important 20th century books if he had attempted to build his argument on enlightenment and humanism. Now the book is more inspiring than actually enlightening in the tradition I think Postman wanted us to respect.

Still the book is written in a style and tone where it is clear that Postman is serious in is urge to do what he can to help us reflect whether we have been on the wrong course for 200 years. As so many of our basic references and so many of the most significant problems have emerged during this time it is well worth taking that question serious.