PART FOUR

[First half published December 31, 2024, and second half published January 2, 2025, by The Daily Progress, the daily newspaper of Charlottesville, Virginia] 

 

[Published January 3, 2025, by The News Virginian, the daily newspaper of  Waynesboro, Virginia] 

Chapter Two: Observations of the Natural World Confirm the Existence of God

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © 2024 Marlene A. Condon

The American Black Bear would much rather go after your birdseed than you. Contrary to popular belief, humans have no natural predators.

Although the Bible informs us that the proof of God’s existence is right before our eyes, many people—believers as well as non-believers—seem to be doubtful of this message. Believers often tend to regard as true that the existence of God is a matter of faith only. Non-believers simply do not consider whether proof exists because they have already reached a conclusion about the matter.

 

Other people claim that no one can prove or disprove the existence of God. They say there is no physical evidence we can use to verify His existence based upon our own observations or experience. They consider intellectual curiosity unwarranted because they deem the question unanswerable.

 

Then there are folks who feel that whether God exists makes no difference, so no one need bother asking the question in the first place. They feel whatever the answer turns out to be, it will not alter one’s life.

 

But if people were given undeniable proof that God does in fact exist, I am convinced that there would be a paradigm shift in people’s attitudes towards each other, the wildlife that shares this planet, and the physical environment that supports us.

 

How does having knowledge of nature make clear the existence of God? As explained in the Introduction, empirical evidence (based upon or verifiable by observation of the natural world) reveals a basic truth: All the organisms we study clearly exist to provide services that keep the environment functioning for the benefit (i.e., perpetuation) of nearby life forms.

 

However, there is one, and only one, organism that does not adhere to this truism: man. Mankind contributes absolutely nothing to the natural world. We exist simply to lead our lives; we do not pitch in one bit to help the environment sustain other life on Earth.

Man exists as a unique life form; he is not a part of nature. Science cannot explain such an evolutionary anomaly.  American astronomer Carl Sagan popularized the statement that, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and you now possess that extraordinary evidence.

 

People have long believed that English naturalist Charles Darwin’s idea of biological evolution by natural selection (as opposed to “artificial” selection, which refers to selective breeding controlled by humans) disproved the existence of God. Darwin believed that natural selection was a plausible explanation for how a wide variety of life forms could have developed over time from one common ancestor, which seems to contradict the Bible. Darwin, himself, came to doubt the existence of God “now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin]

 

And yet, Darwin’s theory supports the existence of God. He would have realized this truth if he had looked at the natural world from a broader perspective, rather than only looking at the survival capabilities of unique organisms within it.

 

Natural selection revolves around populations adapting, or becoming more well suited, to their environments as these surroundings change over time. Because Darwin focused only upon how the individual organism can better relate to its environment and itself survive, rather than going further and considering how the environment performs better due to the success of the individual’s adaptation, he missed the crucial point that the lives of organisms help maintain a properly functioning environment—which leads us directly to man’s aberrant place within it.

 

There can be only one explanation for such a deviation from the pathway of all other life forms. God must exist and He must have created mankind as a special entity—one that is not required to work for the benefit of all. Instead, man depends upon every other creature to work for his benefit as well as its own.

 

If man had simply evolved alongside other organisms, as scientists posit, why would his life role so completely depart from the established standard of every other organism upon the Earth? Evolution simply cannot explain such an incongruity. 

However, the Bible tells us that God gave man everything he needed in Eden so man could focus on worshipping Him. Man was, most assuredly, exceptional. There was no expectation that man would participate in activities that keep the environment working correctly—and he doesn’t.

 

This glaring peculiarity begs the question of how it could have ever been overlooked. However, it only becomes obvious to those who completely grasp how the natural world—in its entirety—works, and very few people truly look at this big picture. If they do, they consider it only in terms of their own existence, rather than in conjunction with other life forms. 

 

Of course, folks can always argue that irregularities happen, and that perhaps man’s odd status is simply due to a singularity in man’s evolution. But another peculiarity cinches the argument for the existence of God as the creator of man: All the large predatory animals that could easily rip people apart, if they wanted to do so, instead live in fear of mankind. It’s a fact that man has no natural predators, providing us with, perhaps, the most accurate meaning of God’s statement that man would have “dominion” over the Earth.

 

You may doubt that man has no natural predators. Nowadays, people are so removed from the natural world that they possess mistaken ideas about it. They tend to fear predators (even as small an animal as a fox), erroneously believing that animals which feed upon other animals would feed upon humans as well. However, historical sources confirm this isn’t so.

 

Lions, tigers, wolves, cougars, and bears, for example, have never readily preyed upon human beings, even though they could so effortlessly kill them for food. Throughout history, when given a choice, these predators preferred to move quickly and quietly away from people when their paths crossed.

 

Kevin Hanson, author of Cougar: The American Lion, tells us that American Indians respected the big cat’s hunting prowess, which apparently resulted in a way for them to get food without expending any effort themselves. After a cougar eats some of its meal, it caches the rest, and Native Americans took advantage of this trait to obtain meat more easily.

 

European immigrants, on the other hand, felt only fear and hatred for the animal—an attitude that is still very much prevalent in today’s descendants. That mindset is not surprising, considering that by the 1500s and 1600s, many of the people in Europe were already living in cities far removed from life in the natural world. Their lack of familiarity with predators undoubtedly resulted in fear of them, even though humans and such predators as wolves had already coexisted just fine for millennia.

 

However, the white settlers in America did not kill off cougars because the big cats went after them, but rather because these meat-eating animals sometimes went after their cattle. Likewise, in Africa, human/lion conflicts that had not formerly been a big issue are now threatening African lions with extinction.

 

Again, the problem is more about predation of livestock rather than of people, and its increase has much to do with modern herding methods. In the past, people conscientiously watched over their livestock, as mentioned in the Bible in Luke 2:8: “And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock [of sheep] by night.” [The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, The World Publishing Company, 1962.] Their simple presence served as a certain deterrent to livestock predators fearful of man.

 

Because the human population has grown so much—leaving limited space for lions and their prey—a starving lion may occasionally attack a human, adding to the desire to eliminate these animals altogether. But going after humans because of starvation is an act of sheer desperation. All animals need to eat and will take whatever they can get to quell hunger pangs, even if that happens to be a vulnerable human in the vicinity.

 

Starving people behave similarly. Although abhorrent to our sensibilities, some of the migrants in the snowbound Donner party (winter of 1846-47) were so desperate for food that they resorted to cannibalism. More recently, 16 survivors of a 1972 plane crash in the Andes also relied on cannibalism to survive the ordeal. Intense hunger is a stern and unapologetic driver of behavior.

[https://www.today.com/popculture/andes-uruguay-plane-crash-1972-survivors-now-rcna133498]

 

In America, native peoples may have domesticated the wolf (the wild ancestor of our dogs) because this species hung around their settlements looking for handouts. Another suggestion is that a reciprocal relationship existed in which both species provided food for each other or shared food. Either way, this canine allowed itself to become subservient to humans instead of asserting the power embodied in its size and fangs.

[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.2993/etbi-35-02-262-285.1]

 

If you are still skeptical and doubt that man has no natural predators, you need only to watch a circus act in which trainers demand unnatural behaviors from lions and tigers, such as making them jump through a hoop of fire. (Although circuses with animal acts no longer exist in the United States, videos are available for viewing on www.youtube.com) It is puzzling to see such big, muscular animals so intimidated by a man who couldn’t possibly defend himself against such brawny creatures, should they attack. Only the existence of God could possibly explain this seemingly nonsensical situation.

 

Of course, these captive big cats have, on occasion, killed their handlers, but not in a predator/prey relationship, but rather, in self-defense. The lifetime of stress they were made to endure (by being caged, frightened, and forced into abnormal behaviors) is antithetical to their biology (how they would be living their lives in the wild). As with humans, animals have their limits.  

 

Sometimes you hear about bears or cougars attacking people, but it’s usually the result of an adult inserting himself into a situation of his own making by allowing his dog to run loose. Coming upon a bear or cougar minding its own business, the dog will harass it by barking in too-close proximity, which forces the predator to defend itself from perceived harm. When the dog owner tries to save his dog, he gets injured by the bear or cougar, too.

 

Similarly, when people leave their small pets, babies, or toddlers unattended in bear/cougar country, they invite predators to take what appears to be an easy meal. These animals fear adult humans, but not their children or small pets that adults are expected to know should never be left unguarded in such circumstances.

 

Unfortunately, these incidents get misrepresented to the public, giving the predatory animals a bad rap they do not deserve, which results in people misunderstanding, fearing, and despising such animals. But when you look at the natural world with an open mind and see it as it truly is, rather than based upon personal feelings or opinions influenced by erroneous assumptions, you can clearly recognize the evidence of God’s existence, whether or not you are already a believer.

 

In the case of these large predators, evolution cannot explain their apprehension when encountering humans. In nature, larger size equates to greater strength and thus the ability to dictate in which direction a confrontation proceeds. Yet this intense fear of mankind took place long before people were empowered by guns and other such weaponry to fight off any kind of large-predator attack.

 

Human beings, unlike other organisms, possess no built-in defenses to protect themselves. Even our basic senses are poorly developed for thriving in the natural world; we don’t see or smell or hear as well as other creatures do to avoid dangerous confrontations—if such a situation presented itself. Thus, from a scientific standpoint, humans are so ill-suited to survive in the natural world that it’s nonsensical to posit they evolved in the same manner as other life forms and are in no way different from them.

 

This is not to say that mankind did not evolve through time. The fossil record makes clear that while Homo sapiens may be the only humans alive today, other hominins (species regarded as human, directly ancestral to humans, or very closely related to humans) preceded us by millions of years.

[https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution/Increasing-brain-size]

 

But to be human is to be far different from the other creatures. To survive, humans needed a larger brain that enabled them to think and eventually to communicate with others, so they could figure out such things as how to stay warm in cold climates and how to make tools that would help them catch prey and engage in agriculture.

 

It’s far more rational to recognize how this situation speaks to the existence of God, who created a world in which man had no need to defend himself. The natural behavior of all the large predators on Earth has always been to avoid, rather than to confront, man—if possible. Only the existence of God can explain man’s degree of non-physical dominion over all the other kinds of creatures on Earth.

 

In fact, the Bible confirms this statement. Genesis 9:2 states: “The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered.” [The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, The World Publishing Company, 1962.] Remarkably, but not surprisingly, everything I’ve learned on my own about the natural world is confirmed within the Bible.

 

A question often asked and answered is whether man is a part of nature or whether he is apart from it. Scientists argue via biological principles that man is a part of nature, while some politically minded folks say we are a part of nature only to justify our impacts upon the Earth, no matter how big or small.

 

In a paper published in 2017, John A. Vucetich, a professor of population ecology at the School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences at Michigan Technological University, concluded that common biological ancestry makes the animals and plants comprising nature our “siblings”, and thus we are “fundamentally one and the same.” He wrote that, “Ever since Darwin, common ancestry among living creatures is part of the bedrock of modern scientific thought.”

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319355712_Are_Humans_and_Nature_Fundamentally_One_and_the_Same/citation/download]

Other people argue that man is a part of nature only to excuse his damage to the Earth. After all, if man is a part of nature, then anything he does is “natural” and therefore must be acceptable as natural processes.

 

Rachel Carson declared that, “Man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself.” Of course, she meant that desecration of the Earth would result in the destruction of mankind because, just as with other organisms, people depend upon the natural world.

[https://www.azquotes.com/author/17642-Rachel_Carson#google_vignette]

 

Yet, man’s “war against nature” furnishes yet more evidence that he is, in truth, apart from it, rather than a part of it. No other organism works out of agreement with the world around it.

You can see this for yourself by taking an honest look at your neighborhood. How much of your local area looks natural? Probably not much, because people view “overgrown” (i.e., what should be seen as “natural”) areas as unkempt and unbefitting a civilized society. Therefore, they constantly mow or herbicide plants alongside roadways and in parks—even national ones—to do away with the natural look that is so supportive of wildlife.

 

At entrances to homes, “wild” areas are replaced with plants more to the owners’ liking that makes everything neat and orderly, resulting in a sanitized (read “does not support wildlife”) appearance.

 

By not living in harmony with nature, man is obviously a different “beast”—one that is biologically disjunct from all others. Therefore, he can’t possibly be part and parcel of the natural world.

 

You now have in your possession the incontrovertible evidence that God exists. Will it change your attitude towards our natural world and the way you live your life? Only you can decide.

Man’s refusal to live among large predators allows hoofed mammals, such as these White-tailed Deer, to overpopulate, causing problems not only for people’s gardens, but also for their environment.

TOMORROW, PART FIVE:

Chapter Three: Other Religions Agree with the Nature Revelation

DISCLAIMER:

Ads appearing at the end of e-mail blog-post notifications are posted by follow.it as recompense for granting free usage of their software at the author's blog site. The author of this blog has no say in what ads are posted and receives no monetary compensation other than the use of the software. 

 The Trouble with Horticulture

Slugs and snails are viewed in the gardening world as “pests”, when the reality is that they exist to help recycle rotting, organic debris, such as pollen that has collected on the author’s carport. In other words, they return nutrients to the soil to fertilize your plants so you don’t need to do it. Don’t kill these helpful animals as extension web sites tell you to do; instead, feed them by keeping decomposing organic matter in your yard and garden.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

NOTE: “The Trouble with Horticulture” was published by The Daily Progress (the Charlottesville, Virginia, daily newspaper) on August 15, 2024. To read it at the site, click on the link below. I’ve also posted it here for your convenience.

 

https://dailyprogress.com/opinion/column/marlene-condon-the-trouble-with-horticulture/article_cc6704f2-5430-11ef-abf8-eb36c45559e1.html

People rant about various kinds of wildlife that are problematic for them, when they themselves are responsible for the difficulties they encounter. Expecting to garden without a knowledge of nature is akin to expecting to bake bread without any knowledge of kneading and proofing (the process of activating yeast).

 

Despite the admonition much given these days to not grow alien plants, many nonnative species (such as this Red Clover—Trifolium pratense) can furnish wildlife (such as these Great Spangled Fritillary butterflies) with nourishment throughout the growing season.

Still, generation after generation of horticulturists get degrees that are not based upon an understanding of how the natural world works, even though that is where gardeners and farmers grow their plants. Consequently, they provide gardeners with a lot of misinformation that has become “factual” by way of constant repetition by those who’ve obtained doctorates in this field. As a result, gardeners encounter wildlife problems and end up believing that many critters are “pests” when, in fact, they are nothing more than innocent animals trying to survive.

 

Your gardening doesn’t take place in a vacuum. Thus, you have no choice but to follow natural laws. So, let’s look at just a few of the “truisms” in gardening lore that are, in fact, myths. When followed, they make unnecessary work for the gardener, and are also detrimental to wildlife and the environment.

Putting up bird boxes is not enough to entice birds to nest in your yard. You must provide them with food. For this Eastern Screech Owl in the author's yard, mice and insects that people often think shouldn’t be around their house are required.

As summer draws to a close and fall arrives, gardening experts issue the same axiom year after year: Clean up your garden to keep pest problems at a minimum. However, if you have a yard that is wildlife friendly, this task is totally unnecessary. It deprives many animals of needed winter food and cover, and over time, bankrupts the soil nutrition available for growing plants.

 

While it’s true that some insects overwinter in plant stalks, either as adults or eggs, it’s also true that many animals will find these insects and eat them. Wrens and woodpeckers will come to feeders to get sunflower seeds, but they mainly subsist upon insects all the year around. As a result, they can be in big trouble if we have a harsh winter with lots of snow. If you leave plants standing, especially tall ones, these birds have a better chance of surviving because they may find insects or their eggs on the stems above the snow.

 

Deer Mice also eat insects. While you probably care more about birds than these mammals—thinking that all rodents are “pests”—consider that mice help to replant our forests and grasslands. They are Mother Nature’s gardeners, carrying seeds back to their nests and dropping some along the way that may then grow where they fell.

 

It’s easy to overlook the fact that every creature does its part to keep the other components of the ecosystem functioning properly, but humans need to recognize this actuality. Even though you don’t want mice in your house, you should welcome them outdoors, and not only because they are inadvertent gardeners. Mice are a prime food source for owls, and thus are a real attractant if you would like to see these birds of prey around your home.

 

Another gardening myth is that you must keep your plants totally “bug-free” to keep them healthy. Healthy plants can withstand a few insects chewing or sucking on them. Remember, plants exist to feed animals (“Marlene’s Axiom for Life on Earth to Persist”). There’s no need to run for the insecticide spray at the first sign of a few six-legged critters, especially as many of these insects will be eaten if you’ve created a yard that welcomes predators.

 

For example, many folks worry about aphids, yet they rarely cause significant damage in a yard full of birds. Hummingbirds, especially, require such tiny insects to obtain protein and fat for good health. Remove aphids and you remove a significant food source for these sprightly creatures.

Putting in even a small artificial pond provides habitat for aquatic wildlife, such as this male Green Frog resting on a waterlily pad in the author’s three- by four-foot front-yard pond. Ponds containing wildlife are not a significant source of mosquitoes because most of the aquatic larvae get eaten. However, beware the water garden that only holds plants! With no animals to limit mosquito production, you’ll get mosquitoes galore.

You’ve probably also heard that you shouldn’t allow your perennials to go to seed as it drains the energy they could put into growing. A plant’s ultimate “goal” is to reproduce so it’s well adapted to making seeds and still accomplishing the growth that it should do each year. If you spend time deadheading (removing all “spent” blooms—those that are going to seed), you are performing busywork and, again, depriving your local wildlife of food. In my yard, House Finches flock to the seeds of my Red Hot Poker (Kniphofia spp.), and it still has grown larger and larger every year.

 

Lastly, anywhere you plan to cover bare ground with mulch, you should instead let some “weeds” grow. They serve as your natural mulch. Rather than stealing water, they keep the ground shaded to prevent moisture loss, and many turn into lovely flowers that provide beauty for the gardener, nectar for hummingbirds, butterflies and/or numerous other insects, and possibly seeds for birds and small mammals if you leave them standing.

 

Pillbugs (also known as Roly-poly Bugs or Woodlice), are often found underneath flower pots. They are not insects, but rather, land crustaceans related to marine arthropods, such as lobsters, shrimp, and crayfish. Their function in the environment is to help recycle dead plant and animal matter, which is why you see them in association with planter pots. Yet, extension offices often refer to them as “pests” and tell gardeners to get rid of them! Ignorance of the true roles of our fellow life forms endangers the proper functioning of the environment that supports all of us.

Save time and energy by gardening in a more relaxed manner, and you’ll help our wildlife while you’re at it. Your reward will be the opportunity to watch nature at work instead of you! 😊

 

NATURE ADVICE:

 

Here’s my definition of gardening: The perpetual expenditure of human energy to defy Mother Nature™. From this follows my Golden Rule of Gardening: Always follow Mother Nature’s examples™. Obey my Golden Rule (as I have always done) and you won’t suffer the difficulties farmers and gardeners typically encounter—because they are doing things incorrectly. And then you won’t need to waste energy trying to make amends for disregarding the natural laws you have no choice but to obey (the whole point of my book, The Nature-friendly Garden).  

 

DISCLAIMER:

 

Ads appearing at the end of e-mail blog-post notifications are posted by follow.it as recompense for granting free usage of their software at the author's blog site. The author of this blog has no say in what ads are posted and receives no monetary compensation other than the use of the software. 

 

Time to See the Light Regarding Loss of Insects and Birds

This Christiansburg, Virginia, plaza could be planted with native trees and still not support caterpillars, thanks to the excessive lighting that is a prime killer of moths.

Plenty of native trees exist in the eastern United States to support moth caterpillars, but when moths spend the night circling artificial lights—such as the street lamps seen here among an abundance of large native trees—they die without reproducing.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

Originally published in The News-Virginian (Waynesboro, Virginia) on July 16, 2022

https://newsvirginian.com/opinion/columnists/condon-time-to-see-the-light-regarding-loss-of-insects-and-birds/article_6d0f3322-03eb-11ed-8317-53ceb5edb5ab.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

On summer nights, when I was a child, my mother would scream at us kids to quickly get into the house before all the insects (mainly moths) circling our carport light had a chance to come inside with us. Nowadays, I can put on my own carport light with hardly any insects—certainly not moths—coming to it.

The reigning assumption regarding the loss of insects and birds (derived from research published in 2017, “Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird”,

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320717305153)

 

is that the most crucial step people can take to save the environment is to grow native plants. But is this theory truly the environmental panacea for our time?

 

Bringing Nature Home by Doug Tallamy also stressed the importance of growing native, rather than nonnative, plants. In this book, the author showed a nighttime image of the United States aglow with lights [page 28, 2007 advance reading copy]. He captioned it, “A composite image from space of the United States at night shows the extent to which we have converted natural areas [i.e., native plants] to developed landscapes [i.e., alien plants]”.

 

True enough. However, the more ominous takeaway is the dire effect of all those lights upon insects, especially the moths whose caterpillars have always been essential to birds raising their young. These larvae are now largely gone because adults are largely gone. Moths that circle lights all night until they are exhausted, or where they are easily caught by predators (such as bats and owls), are moths that don’t reproduce.

 

Why am I so sure that lights are the problem rather than a decrease in the number of native plants? I’ve lived in my home for more than 36 years. My yard has always been surrounded by mature oak forest, and I’ve watched through the decades the trees growing so tall that I can no longer view the Blue Ridge Mountains only a few miles to the west.

 

Nevertheless, despite the ever-increasing woody mass of native trees and shrubs around me, the numbers and kinds of insects and birds have decreased in my yard, just as they have elsewhere. I’ve never employed pesticides on my property, and I have gardened in full agreement with Mother Nature (hence my 2006 book on this subject).

 

The argument that there’s not enough native woody plants doesn’t work here because mature forests have comprised a substantial percentage of my property as well as the surrounding area. In fact, this idea doesn’t apply to much of the eastern United States.

 

Travel in a plane between New England and the South or fly in a hot-air balloon over your local area, and—unless you live in the concrete jungle of a city—you are going to observe plenty of large native trees in yards, parks, and “natural” (i.e., managed) areas.

 

In 2017, German researchers made world-wide headlines with their paper published in the journal, Nature, in which they detailed their own discovery of insects disappearing. Many suggestions have been put forth for the loss, including such things as pesticides (over 1 billion pounds a year are deployed in the United States, https://www.brownfieldsummit.com/how-many-pesticides-are-used-in-the-us) and loss of natural habitat due to development.

 

None of these considerations explains the loss of insects on my property over the course of almost four decades. A more plausible explanation is the ever-increasing number of lights needlessly burning all night around homes, churches, schools, libraries, businesses, barns, vineyards, American flags, and in parking lots and even national parks. Indeed, despite living in a rural area, it’s now difficult for me to view the Milky Way, thanks to light pollution.

 

Light constitutes an insidious menace because its allure to insects is so strong and its effect upon them so deadly, while people are oblivious to its ramifications. There’s no harm in growing more native plants, but this action is not going to prevent the loss of more insects.

 

If you truly want to help our insects and birds, you need to shut off lights burning all night, every night, for no good reason. Then we might see a light at the end of the tunnel for saving what’s left of our insects and the birds dependent upon them.

NATURE ADVICE:

 

In addition to limiting the amount of time you leave exterior lights burning after dark, you should take into account the amount of light exiting your windows. This light also attracts insects and keeps them “glued” to windowpanes instead of reproducing. To prevent light from escaping your windows, please use curtains or blinds.

 

And please keep in mind that lighted yard decorations also contribute to the loss of insects.

 

 

Knowledge of Nature Would Have Better Informed COVID-19 Pandemic Response

A White Hall, Virginia, Ruritan sign informs folks that the wearing of a mask saves lives. Unfortunately, people resist taking this common-sense advice. If they had a better comprehension of nature, this stubbornness would not occur.

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

“Today, fear has found its way to the front of the queue as a driver of mental distress and trauma”, Dr Claire Weekes, Australian physician (1903-1990).

 

The scientific and political reactions to the discovery of a novel virus—COVID-19—among us confirmed a deeply disturbing reality: Many scientists in the biological sciences nowadays seem rather unfamiliar with the workings of the natural world, which leads to illogical reasoning and bad advice that politicians blindly follow instead of first critically assessing.

 

Our government officials initially shut down our country—an action taken out of fear—that caused much distress and trauma to its citizenry. They closed “nonessential” businesses and demanded that those staying open sanitize all surfaces before allowing customers inside.

 

Neither health scientists nor the government officials who listened to them (two public-sector groups who enjoy job security) took into account that no business is “nonessential” to those making a living from it, nor that sanitation of surfaces to prevent illness is a complete waste of time and effort other than in limited and confined areas, such as inside hospitals and nursing homes.

 

It's irrational to think you can disinfect the world; we’re surrounded by uncountable numbers of microorganisms 24/7 and billions of people capable of redistributing them. Nevertheless, out of an “abundance of caution” (the fear of a highly unlikely catastrophic outcome that those in the medical profession didn’t want to risk getting blamed for), the practice of wiping down store shelves and the goods on them after the pandemic began was demanded despite the impossibility of achieving long-term disinfection. Employee time and effort were squandered on a senseless mandate.

 

Virologists (those who study viruses) should have known that a virus, though genetically simple, is comparable to living organisms. (After all, viruses have been seriously studied for over a century.) And, similarly to all lifeforms, a virus requires an environment that meets its specific needs in order to thrive.  Outside of that setting, its existence is necessarily limited, a fact that comprises a basic biological concept.

 

For COVID, its indispensable environment is the human body, and the only rational approach to maintaining public health would have been for government to inform folks that each independently functioning individual (i.e., not dependent upon caregivers) would need to take responsibility for his own wellbeing. To effect change in human behavior, especially in unfamiliar circumstances, such as this pandemic, knowledge and understanding are imperative.

 

Therefore, public-service announcements (PSAs) could have explained that handwashing removes germs and thus is an important step to take before touching your eyes, nose, or mouth after being in a public space where the COVID virus could be circulating. PSAs could have spelled out that the wearing of a mask serves as a physical barrier to these viruses within the air, and social distancing helps to prevent these airborne germs from reaching you from an infected person.

 

But, because analytical thought didn’t prevail among those in charge, many businesses ended up closing permanently as a result of foolish mandates and many people lost their jobs as a result. To assist citizens harmed by its poor advice, government ended up printing money to send to them. When ill-conceived actions are taken without first skillfully evaluating them, astronomical costs can be incurred.

 

The only thing the government got right was to get vaccines out to the public as safely and quickly as possible because getting vaccinated is the ultimate defense against becoming severely ill. Yet, large numbers of people are refusing to participate in these measures that, in addition to protecting their own health, have a high probability of successfully bringing the pandemic to a halt—which points up another sober shortcoming in society today.

 

Folks have become so out of touch with nature that they no longer grasp straightforward biological realities. If they did, they would comprehend that if everyone were vaccinated, the COVID virus would have difficulty finding an hospitable environment (a human body) in which to replicate itself, and without reproduction, this threat cannot be perpetuated.

 

I’ve spent my life immersed in the natural world. Understanding how it works guides me well in my everyday life and informs me of nonsensical news stories and misguided decisions made by government. If everyone possessed a wide-ranging comprehension of nature—which they absolutely should because our lives unfold within its realm—we would suffer from far fewer clueless decisions.

 

To deal with any natural phenomenon (such as viruses), it’s crucial to understand nature and how it works. Unfortunately, nowadays, too few people do.

NATURE ADVICE:

 

Show me a person who fears the natural world and I’ll show you a person who doesn’t know much about it. The antidote to fear is knowledge, so if you’re afraid of any aspect of nature, do your best to learn as much as you can about what frightens you. You’ll be amazed by the effectiveness of this strategy.

Oriental Bittersweet—A Murderer Who Kills by Strangling or Smothering His Victims?!

A Northern Mockingbird defends its larder of Oriental Bittersweet fruits that would help it to survive the winter of 2019-2020.

Thanks to misguided human intervention, the vine was cut on this tree that had stood alongside a dirt road for decades, which resulted in the mockingbird losing its dependable food source for the following winter. The Oriental Bittersweet started to regrow in the spring of 2020 (seen here at bottom up to middle of photo), but wasn’t ready to make fruits by the winter of 2020-2021. How was depriving this bird (and possibly other animals) of food throughout the harshest time of the year helpful to our natural world?

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

A “fact” sheet from the Blue Ridge PRISM (https://blueridgeprism.org/factsheets/), a group whose “mission is to lessen the negative impact of invasive species on both private and public land within 10 counties located in Virginia’s northern Blue Ridge region” (https://blueridgeprism.org/) declares that Oriental Bittersweet “murders forests, strangles trees, [and] smothers [the] understory.”

 

Wow. This statement exemplifies perfectly how people concerned about “invasive” plants tend to employ derogatory accusations to prejudice the reader’s opinion right from the get-go. And that’s not all.

 

Continue reading and you find an emotional essay that, rather than straightforwardly supplying facts, instead infuses this vine with uniquely human behavior: “[T]his attractive vine has an aggressive agenda.” Honestly? For bittersweet to have an “aggressive agenda”, it would have to have brains to carry out a conscious and deliberate plan of assault upon the trees of the forest.

 

This type of barrage—one that accuses so-called invasive plants of behaving in the manner of disreputable human beings—is typical of much nativist rhetoric. It has always struck me as odd because we’re talking about plants.

 

So! Let’s move from the fantasy of plants behaving as if they are bad people to the reality of plants behaving quite naturally as plants.

 

What do plants need to do to perpetuate their species?

 

·    They need to grow to reach maturity; in the case of vines, that growth is usually upwards. Many vining plants cannot flower—which they need to do if they are to reproduce—if forced to grow horizontally.

·    Plants need to get their offspring into the wider world in case catastrophe strikes their original position. This feat is often accomplished with the help of animals that enjoy eating fruits produced by the plant. Whether the animal eats the fruits on the spot or carries them away, the seeds within the fruits may successfully get through the animal’s intestinal tract to land far away from the parent plant, allowing the species to spread for the continuation of its kind.

 

In other words, what people see as an “infestation” is simply a species doing what it must to keep from going extinct. It doesn’t know some people have a problem with that.

 

The aforementioned “fact” sheet notes that Oriental Bittersweet “thrives in disturbed soil and tolerates full sun and dappled shade. It may occur abundantly around old home sites, in fields and fencerows, along road edges, and in forests throughout the Blue Ridge.” The sheet goes on to mention that, “This invasive vine now infests the eastern U.S.” and “has been a serious pest in New England since the 1970’s [sic].”

 

What does this paragraph tell us? It says that rather than being “a real beast” as the fact sheet opines, Oriental Bittersweet is doing what comes naturally: It’s responding to what people do to their environment, a fact pretty-much always overlooked by nativists in their diatribes.

 

Disturbed soil is part and parcel of home sites, fields and fencerows created by people to grow crops, roadways because you can’t make a road without disturbing the land, and forests throughout the Blue Ridge because these mountains were denuded by logging—more than once in the history of the country.

 

And let’s not overlook another fact: People intentionally brought bittersweet here to grow in their gardens. This species is not the “invader” suggested by use of the term “invasive”. It should more accurately be described as an escapee.

 

Is bittersweet problematic? This question can’t be answered by a simple “yes” or “no” because the answer depends completely upon a person’s point of view, which is dependent upon what is most important to him.

 

For the person (such as I) who truly cares about wildlife and disappearing habitat in developed areas, the answer is no. Because most folks maintain very few plants around their homes (and even farms nowadays), there’s not much available for animals (especially birds) in need of food, shelter and nesting sites. Bittersweet that has climbed high into a tree on the edge of someone’s property or along roadways provides these necessities that are absent from most yards (and farms).

 

Does it matter if the vine’s presence kills the tree? In the natural world, there is nothing sacrosanct about a tree, and from the human perspective of someone who wants to help our feathered creatures, it shouldn’t be a problem either if the vine is providing more for wildlife than the tree does.

 

Now, if you’re managing a forest for lumber, your perspective is totally different. Since you look at every tree as a source of income, you want what’s best for your purposes rather than what’s best for wildlife.

 

And what if you’re an environmentalist who wants the natural world to more closely resemble its former self before Europeans arrived? Well, that’s a fantasy that can never become reality. Yes, you can work endlessly on your (and perhaps others’) property to get rid of the many plants people brought here some time ago, but the cat’s out of the bag. It’s a waste of your life, especially if your efforts don’t improve living conditions for wildlife, the main reason often given for “invasive-plant” removal. And if you’re employing pesticides that poison the Earth to accomplish this goal, you’re just adding insult to injury.

Lastly, I’ve been asked if I would be unhappy if a neighbor planted Oriental Bittersweet along my property line where it could spread onto my land. Mother Nature—who’s certainly a neighbor—has done just that, as I find this vine growing here and there around my yard. As it has yet to show up where I could let it grow without it being a problem for my preferred plants, I pull it out if it’s small enough and persistently cut it if it isn’t (so it can’t flower).

 

Gardening is the perpetual process of making decisions about which plants you want to encourage and which you don’t. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling himself.

 

NATURE ADVICE:

 

If you believe poisoning (pesticiding) our environment is better than allowing so-called invasive plants to grow, you really ought to rethink your perspective. Instead of buying into denunciations of these plants, get out into the world and observe it carefully with an open mind that will allow you to recognize the truth: The presence of nonnative plants that assist wildlife to survive is far better than the barren area that’s typically left when people remove “invasives”.

 

Few people make an effort to replace the plants removed because they mistakenly believe native plants will (magically) show up. It's possible they might, but the usual reason “invasive” plants grow where they do is because they are more suited than native plants to the environmental conditions in these locations.

 

The Plant Police Are Coming for You

These two male Rose-breasted Grosbeaks are feeding on sunflower seeds that originated in North America, but we often feed wild birds seeds from other lands, such as niger (also spelled nyger) that is grown in Africa, India, and other places in Southeast Asia. Why is it okay to provide foreign foods in a feeder to native animals, but frowned upon to feed them by way of nonnative plants that have the additional benefit of also providing shelter and nesting sites?

ALL TEXT AND PHOTOS © Marlene A. Condon

 

In 2010, overpopulated deer herds denuded virtually every native plant in my yard. Consequently, the plants were unable to flower and produce fruits. If I hadn’t grown nonnative plants unpalatable to deer, such as Japanese Barberry shrubs (Berberis thunbergii) that did make fruits, a flock of bluebirds that visited the following extremely cold and snowy winter would not have found nourishment. 

When I excitedly reported to the state Internet bird-reporting site my discovery that bluebirds ate Japanese Barberry fruits, I was taken to task for growing “such an invasive alien plant in [my] yard!” Although my comment went out to serious birders who presumably care about these avian creatures, no-one expressed happiness that the bluebirds at least found something to eat.

 

In the ensuing eleven years, a huge invasive-plant mythology has been written to support waging an unjustified war against specific alien plants, and government at all levels has been brought on board to deny you the right to grow plants that can survive deer overpopulations, climate change, and vast alteration of our physical environment.

 

The City of Cape May, New Jersey, almost passed Ordinance 404-2020 in December of 2020 “relating to the control and elimination of invasive plants”. It was much supported by the Cape May Environmental Commission, a member of which wrote a letter to the editor which contained the usual misinformation that, nevertheless, often convinces unknowledgeable government officials to act in a manner that harms, instead of helps, nature.

 

The letter writer spoke of kudzu to say that “It outcompetes all native vegetation and creates a monoculture made up of itself. This is true of all invasive plants [emphasis mine].” This last pronouncement is simply not true.

 

So-called invasive plants grow where conditions are especially suitable for them, but not for native plants, which means aliens aren’t “outcompeting” natives. Rather, native plants are not growing there in the first place. Additionally, “all invasive plants” do not necessarily create a monoculture. Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellatus) shrubs often share fields with Eastern Redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) and other species.

 

The next sentence of the letter reads that “You may control an invasive on your property, but if it has seeds, both the birds and the wind spread the tree, bush, or plant.” What does this statement tell you? It declares that the so-called invasive plant provides food for birds, and if it’s a tree or a bush, it goes without saying that it also supplies cover and perhaps a nesting site for them.

 

Yet the sentence following the declaration above tells us that “Monocultures do not feed our bees, butterflies, or birds.” This kind of conflicting information is extremely common in letters to the editor and in articles in which the author wants to convince us of the evils of supposedly invasive plants.

 

Continuing, the writer says that, “Planting native trees attracts insects that are needed to feed the birds [but] [a]lien tree species do not attract these specific insects, so they may be pretty, but as far as the environment is concerned, they might as well be stone statues.” Wrong.

 

Native trees may support more caterpillars and sawfly larvae (an animal commonly considered a “pest” when feeding in people’s yards) than alien plants, but that doesn’t mean the pretty nonnative plants “might as well be stone statues”. Flowers are typically what make a plant pretty, and many so-called invasive plants make flowers that attract a huge number of pollinator species. These insects are dwindling in number, undoubtedly due, at least in part, to the vast amount of lawn area in this country that is devoid of "weeds" (interpretation: flowering herbaceous plants) that could feed them.

 

The conclusion of the letter writer is that, “We need this ordinance as a way of supporting the need to educate and control invasive species.” Amazingly, the local government tabled the ordinance, but you can bet the Cape May Environmental Commission will be back pushing for some version of it yet again, even though the “facts” provided by this member of the commission are inaccurate.

 

Unfortunately, some states have fallen under the spell of the mythological “invasive-plant” narrative. In the state of Washington, “plant police” are authorized to charge you with a crime (harboring an illegal alien!!!) and assess fines should your yard contain a plant on the “Noxious Weed List”.

 

https://www.nwcb.wa.gov/washingtons-noxious-weed-laws

 

The Environmental Protection Agency is working to bring this reality to backyards everywhere across the land of the free. Susan Gitlin, Office of Sustainable Communities at the EPA, writes of “refining lists of plants that are regulated at the state and federal level”, positing that such plants “have moved from their native regions into new areas where they crowd out native vegetation.”

 

https://www.astm.org/standardization-news/?q=update/invasive-plant-listing-ja13.html

 

This now entrenched, but false, belief of nonnative plants crowding out native plants has been made “factual” only by perpetual repetition by native-plant societies and other special-interest groups, including invasion-biology scientists, but it contains serious errors of omission. For example, people ignore the factuality that growing conditions in many locations are no longer hospitable to most native plants.

 

Alien plants, such as Autumn Olive that these folks are determined to eradicate, are especially noticeable along highway edges created by construction of roadways or in fields abandoned by farmers. Like native colonizers, such as Virginia Redcedar, they can grow just fine in soil compacted for centuries by cows weighing a half-ton each or road-building crews that bulldozed the land, removing topsoil.

 

If you weren’t paying attention for the past forty-five years and now notice the abundance of nonnative plants in such areas, you could easily believe that nonnative plants pushed out native plants. This misperception forms the basis for the entire field of invasion biology.

 

But the actuality is that abandoned fields, roadsides, hiking trails, and clearcut forest not replanted filled eventually—I’m talking many years—with colonizers, whether native, nonnative, or a mix of both. I’ve been watching it happen since I was a college student in the 1970s, and you don’t even need a scientist to explain why this scenario makes sense.

 

Any avid gardener knows the saying, “right plant, right place”, meaning that every plant has specific growing requirements that must be met for it to thrive. Most native plants cannot grow in the corrupted soil profile of disturbed areas, which includes homeowner yards that have been cleared and graded. When I moved into my house 35 years ago, the gray-clay subsoil had been exposed and the yard looked like the surface of the Moon.

 

Alien plants quickly provided wildlife habitat, and my moonscape became a nature-friendly garden supporting a larger diversity and abundance of wildlife than had existed when the land was deeply shaded by forest. Over the decades, these plants rehabilitated the soil and numerous species of native plants have moved naturally into my yard, but I refuse to remove the alien plants that have been—and remain—so helpful.

 

I’ve seen far more wildlife—in species and numbers—in my yard over the past 35 years than most folks will ever see in a lifetime of visiting wildlife refuges and national parks. I know for a fact that nonnative plants are beneficial to wildlife by providing them with food and shelter and to native plants by rehabbing the soil for them to return.

 

If you want to truly aid our wildlife and the environment in its entirety, you must ignore the mythmakers of plant-invasion biology. But don’t ignore your lawmakers! Please let your congressional representatives know you don’t want laws restricting alien plants on your property—and tell them the excellent reasons why not.

 

 NATURE ADVICE: 

Before taking advice from those folks who may have their own agendas for pushing you to remove alien plants, make notes on which animals are making use of them, as I have done for many years. It may well change your mind as to what’s in the best interest of our wildlife.