In a way I share an experience with the late Elijah Harper, who nixed the Meech Lake Accord. I have been airbrushed out of CKNW’s history – Rafe Who? – while the late Mr. Harper is a national non-event thanks to the Central Canadian Establishment.

The background to Meech is pretty straightforward. Brian Mulroney needed political help in Quebec and persuaded all the premiers to support a set of constitutional reforms – labelled the Meech Lake Accord –  whereby all the other premiers would postpone their constitutional ambitions until Quebec was settled nicely away with its “Distinct Society” designation AND a veto over all future constitutional proposals. If you’ve advanced past Politics 101 you will see that once satisfied, Quebec could and would veto other changes such as Senate reform. It was a colossal mistake and one can only assume it was contracted on the back of an envelope during the cocktail hour.

It was agreed that every province had to ratify it by June 1990.

With a few hours to go, Manitoba Premier Gary Filmon moved that the Meech Lake Accord be debated and asked special leave, which was needed, to bring it forward. One has to ask why Filmon waited til the bitter end. The special leave was refused by Elijah Harper, who passed away last week, and Meech Lake was dead.

The Newfoundland and Labrador agreement was given under Tory Brian Peckford but rescinded by the Liberal government of Clyde Wells who had scheduled its vote to follow that of Manitoba. When Manitoba failed to ratify, Premier Wells canceled the Newfoundland and Labrador vote.

Mulroney was livid. He didn’t want to dump on fellow Tory Filmon and to criticize an Indian, as Harper was, was unthinkable. He therefore railed at Clyde Wells, whose decision to withdraw the motion was based on the very sensible view that he shouldn’t divide his province after the deal had failed in Manitoba.

The Meech Lake Accord failed and to many like me it was time to thank God for his blessing.

Mulroney tried again with the Charlottetown Accord but by that time Quebec and BC stated that they would hold referenda.

It failed – spectacularly. I did my best, from behind my microphone at CKNW, to help it go down in BC.

Charlottetown quickly became a non-event.

Mulroney’s press secretary, Bill Fox, wrote a book on the Mulroney years in which there was one sentence about Meech and not a peep about Charlottetown!

Thus, the way the people in charge deal with their losses!

Scientists often come up with new discoveries, technologies or theories. But sometimes they rediscover what our ancestors already knew. A couple of recent findings show we have a lot to learn from our forebears – and nature – about bugs.

Modern methods of controlling pests have consisted mainly of poisoning them with chemicals. But that’s led to problems. Pesticides kill far more than the bugs they target, and pollute air, water and soil. As we learned with the widespread use of DDT to control agricultural pests and mosquitoes, chemicals can bioaccumulate, meaning molecules may concentrate hundreds of thousands of times up the food web – eventually reaching people.

As Rachel Carson wrote in her 1962 book Silent Spring, using DDT widely without knowing the full consequences was folly. She showed it was polluting water and killing wildlife, especially birds, and that it could cause cancer in humans. Her book launched the environmental movement but did little to change our overall strategy for dealing with bugs. Although DDT was banned worldwide for agricultural purposes in 2001, the chemical is still used to control insects that spread disease.

Recent research shows that widespread use of pesticides like DDT may have caused us to ignore or forget benign methods of pest control. Because the chemicals were so effective, infestations were reduced and there was little interest in non-toxic methods. But bugs evolve quickly and can become immune to pesticides. That’s true of bedbugs, the now ubiquitous critters that are showing up around the world in homes, hotels, schools, movie theatres – even libraries.

But a method used long ago provides an effective and non-toxic weapon against the pests, according to a U.S. study in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface. The authors looked into the once-common Eastern European practice of spreading bean leaves around a bed to control bedbugs. What they found was fascinating.

“During the night, bed bugs walking on the floor would accumulate on these bean leaves, which were collected and burned the following morning to exterminate the bed bugs. The entrapment of bed bugs by the bean leaves was attributed to the action of microscopic plant hairs (trichomes) on the leaf surfaces that would entangle the legs of the bed bugs,” the scientists, from the University of California, Irvine, and University of Kentucky, wrote.

They discovered that after bugs get caught up in the hooked plant hairs, they struggle to escape, and in the process vulnerable parts of their feet are pierced by the hooks, permanently trapping them. The research focuses on a way to replicate this. “This physical entrapment is a source of inspiration in the development of new and sustainable methods to control the burgeoning numbers of bed bugs,” the researchers wrote, adding that the method “would avoid the problem of pesticide resistance that has been documented extensively for this insect.”

Other research has literally dug up pest control methods that go back millennia. An international team of archeologists recently found evidence that people living in South Africa almost 80,000 years ago made bedding out of insect-repelling plants.

According to the journal Science, the research team found 15 different layers containing bedding made from compacted stems and leaves of sedges and rushes, dating between 77,000 and 38,000 years ago. One layer of leaves was identified as River Wild-quince, which contains “chemicals that are insecticidal, and would be suitable for repelling mosquitoes.” The archeologists also found evidence that people often burned the bedding after use, possibly to remove pests.

These are just two examples of what we can learn from our ancestors and from nature. Because natural systems tend toward balance, the fascinating field of biomimicry has developed to explore what nature can teach us. It’s aimed at finding “sustainable solutions by emulating nature’s time-tested patterns and strategies,” according to the Biomimicry Guild website. “The goal is to create products, processes, and policies – new ways of living – that are well-adapted to life on earth over the long haul.”

Maybe the truest sign of human intelligence is not to learn how we can shoehorn nature into our own agenda, but to see how we can better find our own place in nature.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org

The anthropologist’s view of capitalism has more perspective than the economist’s. The economist examines such details as the rhythms of booms and busts, the dynamics of prosperity and poverty, and the merits of deficits and surpluses. But the anthropologist examines capitalism as a passing cultural phenomenon within great sweeps of time, as an event comparable to the chipping of flint or the beginning of agriculture. Someone who does this with illuminating clarity is Ronald Wright, first in his book, A Short History of Progress, again in What is America?: A Short History of the New World Order, and then once more in a poignant interview with fellow author and journalist Chris Hedges in “The Myth of Human Progress”.

Wright describes the early years of capitalism in 15th century Europe as stagnant. Food production could not support a larger population. Wealth had plateaued. Limited European resources handicapped trade with the Orient. Then Columbus made contact with the New World in 1492. Within a few decades, potatoes, tomatoes, novel grains and other high-production crops from North and South America were proliferating in European fields. The population soared. Gold and silver from Aztec and Inca civilizations flooded treasuries. Valuable trading commodities passing through Europe energized its economy. The free labour of African slaves lubricated the entire process. Both Karl Marx and Adam Smith claimed that these factors culminated in the Industrial Revolution, an event that multiplied capitalism’s accelerating economic activity.

As Wright explains in his interview with Chris Hedges, this success was the cause of a a fundamental misconception. “The experience of a relatively easy 500 years of expansion and colonization, the constant taking over of new lands, led to the modern capitalist myth that you can expand forever. It is an absurd myth. We live on this planet. We can’t leave it and go somewhere else. We have to bring our economies and demands on nature within natural limits, but we have had a 500-year run where Europeans, Euro-Americans and other colonists have overrun the world and taken it over. This 500-year run made it not only seem easy but normal.”

Consequently, Wright explains, “We believe things will always get bigger and better. We have to understand that this long period of expansion and prosperity was an anomaly. It has rarely happened in history and will never happen again. We have to readjust our entire civilization to live in a finite world. But we are not doing it, because we are carrying far too much baggage, too many mythical versions of deliberately distorted history and a deeply ingrained feeling that what being modern is all about is having more. This is what anthropologists call an ideological pathology, a self-destructive belief that causes societies to crash and burn. These societies go on doing things that are really stupid because they can’t change their way of thinking. And that is where we are.”

Wright’s summary of our economic history from the 16th century to the present is succinct and insightful. It explains why our modern economic system, having expanded to encompass the entire globe, is so difficult to bring under control. The expectation of perpetual growth is so embedded in our culture that it has become a mythology, an “ideological pathology” incapable of considering alternatives. The result, when functioning in tandem with an exploding human population, is the over-exploitation of almost every ecosystem on the planet. Living in this illusion of normalcy is bringing us to the brink of environmental crisis.

The global economic system, by using desperate measures of exploitation and production, gives the impression that it is coping. But crisis is a word used with increasing frequency. The ecological stresses are rising uncontrollably by almost every possible measure—indeed, they are getting too numerous to list.

People are aware of this trend and are responding accordingly. The pervasive mood is a paradoxical blend of uncertainty and hope. The tension and anxiety are palpable—even among the ultra-wealthy, perhaps explaining why they are either hoarding or giving away billions to foundations trying to stem some facet of the crisis. The optimism that does exist is dependent on either a belated surge in the human sense for survival or in revolutionary technological breakthroughs. The frequent promises of a safer, cleaner, happier and richer world are sounding hollow in an era of growing skepticism. Capitalism, for all its merits and failings as a 500-year practice, may be better than the alternatives, but may not be able to meet the stringent conditions imposed by nature’s laws. These, ultimately, are the only measures that count.

As an anthropologist, Wright has studied the rise and fall of civilizations throughout history. He has no illusions about the frailties and the follies of those who inhabit them. His perspective confirms what many others are thoughtfully considering. Our economic system has worrisome flaws that are incompatible with the constraints imposed by nature. Such flaws may prove fatal if they are not identified and corrected.

This growing awareness is in collision with capitalism’s historical habits and practices. Wright’s duty as an insightful academic is to identify this collision and to warn us of the consequences; his response as a caring human being is to worry about his fellows and to safeguard their future. His prognosis, if we continue as in the past, is not promising. The details are a replay of nature’s dispassionate response to every experiment with an “ideological pathology”. We can either heed Wright’s warning or we can hope he is incorrect. Unfortunately, history as revealed by anthropology, is on his side.

Is your office bad for your health and well-being? Unfortunately, a growing body of scientific evidence says yes.

The modern workday pose – fingers on keyboard, slight slouch, glassy eyes fixed on glowing screen, bathed in unnatural light – can drain vitality, happiness and creativity. Designed to maximize efficiency, this sterile setup actually reduces productivity and job satisfaction.

In fact, modern workplaces are the main reason adults now spend about 9.3 hours a day sitting. Medical journal The Lancet estimates this unprecedented level of inactivity is causing 5.3 million deaths a year worldwide, similar to smoking – prompting the Harvard Business Review to suggest “Sitting is the smoking of our generation.”

The good news is that researchers have built an increasingly persuasive case for what most of us know intuitively: nature is good for us. Being regularly immersed in a natural setting can reduce stress while boosting immunity, ingenuity and energy.

As neuroscientist Marc Berman explains, adding a daily dose of green to your routine may be the best prescription for dealing with workday stress. His research shows that even simple, brief interactions with nature can improve cognitive control and mood.

Why does green time reduce stress? Various studies suggest exposure to natural settings stimulates “soft fascination” – something New York Times reporter Gretchen Reynolds describes as “a beguiling term for quiet contemplation, during which directed attention is barely called upon and the brain can reset those overstretched resources.” Hard fascination, by contrast, is stimulated by bright, loud activities like watching TV or sports, which require little or no effort but don’t allow for mental rest.

Researchers at the University of Michigan estimated that memory performance and attention span can improve by 20 per cent after an hour in nature, while University of Rochester studies concluded that being outside for 20 minutes a day is enough to boost vitality. And a new study from Scotland demonstrated brain fatigue can be eased with just a 10-minute walk in the park.

But how can we fit more green time into our hectic schedules?

The David Suzuki Foundation has a solution. The 30×30 Nature Challenge asks Canadians to commit to spending at least 30 minutes a day in nature for 30 days in May. Participants can take the 30×30 pledge at davidsuzuki.org/30x30Challenge and receive tips about how to add green time to their routines.

Finding your nature fix can be easy. Hold your next meeting outdoors – maybe make it a walking meeting. Invite colleagues to have lunch in a nearby park. Take the scenic route home and go for a walk in a neighbourhood green space along the way. Stop to smell the flowers and take notice of critters, trees and plants. Skip the gym, and head outside for a jog or bike ride.

Even if you can’t make it outside for a daily dose of nature, simple changes inside can help make you happier and healthier. As Alan Logan and Eva Selhub document in their book Your Brain on Nature, workers in windowless settings are more anxious, hostile and depressed than colleagues on windowed floors. Increasing natural light within the workplace has been linked to improved productivity and contentment. Researchers in Texas even found employees in offices with plants or green-space views felt greater job satisfaction and reported a higher overall quality of life.

Increased exposure to nature also leads people to nurture closer relationships and build stronger community bonds. When Capilano University professor Joe Kelly spent at least an hour a day outside each day this March, he observed that “free of the distractions and background noise present in the city, the serenity of nature provides a perfect venue to connect with others.”

Even the world’s worst boss should know employees who are less stressed and healthier are more productive. So why not sign up for the 30×30 Nature Challenge – and encourage your office mates to join? Challenge your entire company to head outside for 30 minutes a day for 30 days. And be sure to take part in the surveys before and after. Tell us how you feel. Does regular time in nature make you calmer? More alert? Happier? Let’s all get into the nature habit. It can make our lives better.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Specialist Jode Roberts.

History never repeats itself. This is a comforting notion because it suggests an endless future disappearing over the horizon of time, a continual supply of fresh opportunities and challenges to encounter and master. It’s the optimistic position. The past, therefore, has little to teach us because the present is always new.

While the details of history never repeat themselves, the patterns of history do — with alarming regularity. The circumstances only seem new because they arrive in different wrappers. But the contents are the same. The same human character repeats the same behaviour, creating the same problems and stresses that we respond to with an old familiarity.

Little of this is obvious in the present because most people are too engrossed in the moment to notice history’s repeating patterns. So this perceptive responsibility falls to the likes of anthropologists, those studious academics with a perspective of time long enough to notice the symmetry between the old and the new. Ronald Wright, author of A Short History of Progress, is one of these anthropologists.

Wright’s book, published in 2004 following its presentation on the CBC’s prestigious Massey Lecture series, possesses an insightfulness and elegant clarity that has been powerful enough to provoke frequent discussion, commentary and interviews. One of the latest persons to join this dialogue with Wright is Chris Hedges, himself an award-winning journalist with his own uncanny sense of perspective. The meeting of these two minds in “The Myth of Human Progress” (truthdig.com, Jan. 13/13) makes impressive reading. And it gives Wright a chance to explain more clearly some of the ways in which history repeats itself in patterns:

There is a pattern in the past of civilization after civilization wearing out its welcome from nature, overexploiting its environment, overexpanding, overpopulating. They tend to collapse quite soon after they reach their period of greatest magnificence and prosperity. That pattern holds good for a lot of societies, among them the Romans, the ancient Maya and the Sumerians of what is now southern Iraq. There are many other examples, including smaller-scale societies such as Easter Island. The very things that cause societies to prosper in the short run, especially new ways to exploit the environment such as the invention of irrigation, lead to disaster in the long run because of unforeseen complications. This is what I called in A Short History of Progress the ‘progress trap.’

Why do civilizations tend to “collapse” soon after reaching their peak? Because they continue to expand until they overreach the maximum exploitation of resources that their environment can tolerate. Then nature forecloses in its own inimitable way. Wright thinks we are now approaching this critical state. In his estimation, “We have set in motion an industrial machine of such complexity and such dependence on expansion that we do not know how to make do with less or move to a steady state in terms of our demands on nature. We have failed to control human numbers.” He notes that they have tripled in his lifetime and that “the number of people in dire poverty today — about 2 billion — is greater than the world’s entire population in the early 1900s. That’s not progress.”

The environmental effects of massive industrialization and a soaring human population, amplified by the power of globalization, differ only in scale from the patterns that brought down previous civilizations. Our response, too, is the same, explains Wright. As we become aware of the stresses that threaten collapse, we “retreat into what anthropologists call ‘crisis cults’.” These are beliefs of desperation, ideological responses to “the powerlessness we feel in the face of ecological and economic chaos…”. They are unhelpful because summoning divine intervention or invoking traditional solutions have historically proven to be less effective than addressing civilization’s real problems with rational and practical measures.

Another common response that fits the historical pattern is to intensify the same activity that is already threatening the existing civilization’s viability. For the Easter Islanders, it was cutting even more trees to erect even more of the huge stone statues that honoured their gods. For the Sumerians, it was irrigating even more intensively the soil that was already being ruined by salinity.

For ourselves, the pattern suggests it is accelerating economic activity, more technology with more industrialization and greater consumerism. It may also be increasing the extraction of fossil fuels, the burning of which is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels — the primary cause of global warming, climate change and a parade of related environmental problems that are becoming more disruptive and costly. The oil, gas and coal are critically important energy sources for our civilization but they are also the primary cause of ecological harm. The discovery of vast new shale gas and oil supplies in country after country, therefore, is an event that can be interpreted as both liberating and suicidal.

The patterns of history seem to repeat themselves so we would be presumptuous to assume that we are exceptions. “We’re Ice Age hunters with a shave and a suit,” Wright reminds us. “We are not good long-term thinkers. We would much rather gorge ourselves on dead mammoths by driving a herd over a cliff than figure out how to conserve the herd so it can feed us and our children forever. That is the transition our civilization has to make. And we’re not doing that.”

Indeed, as history attests, we have never been very good at avoiding disaster. This dawning awareness is causing a proliferation of concern in many prominent thinkers and concerned citizens. It is a small and hopeful sign that we may avoid repeating history.