The Sound Of Success

A few years ago a friend and I had a tomato-plant growing contest. His turned out to be a bodybuilder of a tomato plant while mine seemed somewhat anemic. I was perplexed by this massive disparity until he let me in on his little ‘secret’: he had sat outside and sang to his plants everyday.

There is no doubt in my mind that he actually did this.

In a December 2009 New York Times article on the survival mechanisms of our botanical friends, Monika Hilker of the Institute of Biology at the Free University of Berlin explains that plants respond to tactile cue, recognize different wavelengths of light, listen to chemical signals, and even talk through chemical signals. Therefore, they possess touch, sight, hearing, and speech – senses we commonly reserve for animals.

This can be illustrated by examining plant defense mechanisms. When a plant is bitten by an insect, specialized cells on the plants surface release chemicals to irritate the predator or to trap it in goo. An intrusion activates a chemical response in the plants DNA, which mirrors the immune response of the human body. Researchers at Pennsylvania State University found that within 20 minutes from the time a caterpillar bites a plant, the plant takes in atmospheric carbon and created defense compounds from scratch. The release of these compounds attracts large predatory insects like dragonflies, who feed on caterpillars, and tiny parasitic insects, which can lethally infect the caterpillar. Adding insult to injury (for the predator), the release of these compounds can cause nearby plants of the same species to be more resistant to the herbivores.

This experiment shows the complexities of a plant’s relationship with external stimuli. Plants both receive and send chemical messages. Plants also detect and respond to light waves. Considering this, it is not implausible to assert that they respond to sound waves as well. And in fact, various experiments have detected just that:

In the 1970s a woman named Dorothy Retallack published The Sound of Music and Plants where she details the results of her experiments. Essentially she found that plants exposed to soothing music grew faster, stronger, and towards the music source, whereas plants exposed to rock were weaker and grew away from the music source.

More recently, the guys over at Mythbusters performed a similar experiment. They concluded that plants exposed to sound grew faster than those in silence. However, they found that plants exposed to intense death metal grew better than those exposed to speech recordings or classical music.

Research performed at Penn State suggests that this growth response could have evolved as a way to survive in windy environments.

Regardless, the integral relationship of sound to life cannot be denied. Sound connects us to every other organism, the universe, and even reality itself. The fact that plants, immobile and without consciousness or reason, are affected by sound confirms that we are contributors and receivers to a universal harmonic stew.

We can try to isolate sound as a quantifiable entity, but such efforts will prove futile. Sound is simply vibrational frequencies transmitted through a medium. Our bodies, our minds, our entire perceived reality consists of vibration forces. Sound—rhythm—is intrinsic to our being. We can no more isolate life from rhythm, than we can color from light. Color only exists within light, just as life can only exists within rhythms, within pulsating frequencies. Sound is rythmatic. Life is rhythmatic.

Of course a tomato plant will be more prosperous when bathed in sound. Rhythm is fundamental to life itself.

Armed with this knowledge, my next plants will be the Schwarzeneggers of the tomato kingdom.

“At the heart of each of us, whatever our imperfections, there exists a silent pulse of perfect rhythm, a complex of wave forms and resonances, which is absolutely individual and unique, and yet which connects us to everything in the universe. The act of getting in touch with this pulse can transform our personal experience and in some ways alter the world around us.” – George Leonard, The Silent Pulse

Consumerism is a [modern] Humanism?

There are certain phrases which tend to increase the intellectual credibility of the speaker. “Consumer culture” is one such phrase. It is tossed around intellectual circles with little regard to the actual meaning or implication of the phrase. It is used as an accessory to dignify a speaker’s point; but rarely, if ever, is the phrase appropriately digested by the speaker or the audience.

Every culture throughout human history has had a defined purpose for its existence. This purpose brings meaning to the lives of its members. It is the force behind their presence and the ultimate goal of their existence. The life purpose of many indigenous cultures was spiritual fulfillment. Life’s energy, prana, god/s was the driving force behind existence, and it was this force that governed the culture.

In our modern culture, consumption has become our purpose for existence. Materialism has become our spirituality. We exist to consume. This is not a judgment, but a practical observation. Our daily lives are driven by the desire to consume and we find fulfillment in material items. How many choose the less desirable job which offers greater pay? What is the reason for doing this, when the more desirable job would supply more than enough to support one’s basic needs? With higher paying jobs we can afford designer jeans, status cars, and McMansions. We buy these things because they bring us joy. However, the joy generated by consumption is shallow and fleeting. It is inevitably followed by a sense of despair once the novelty of the item has worn off. This creates a void which feeds the desire for an even greater level of consumption.

Religion may be the opiate of the masses, but consumerism is the religion of modern America.

And like any drug, the illusion of happiness will eventually give way to discontent when the consumer is faced with the drug’s destructive reality. We’re at the tipping point right now. We’re beginning to experience the personal and environmental repercussions of our destructive habits. Poverty and crime continue to rise, our water and air is becoming increasingly polluted, and personal satisfaction is decreasing exponentially; but the question remains, what do we do about it? It’s easy to point fingers at the government or corporations, but unfortunately consumer culture can not be isolated to a single manipulative force. The reality is that we all are this culture. Our culture has emerged from a multitude of influences and each one of us actively contributes to maintaining it. The consumer works in unison with the producer to ensure the continuation of this culture. Conservative, liberals, and progressives alike speak of this “consumer culture” as if they are somehow removed from it. But we have all been born into this culture. The second we enter the world we become consumers. It is a part of us. The planet is being stripped of resources and we are working overtime to afford the new iPhone; but… the iPhone is really cool, and we have been conditioned to think that we need it. Education and sustainable living are important and commendable first steps in combating environmental destruction, but they do not change our culture’s purpose—which is to consume.

So the problem I am faced with is this:

The endless and excessive consumerism that defines our modern culture is destructive to both the planet and to human societies. It has lead to the creation of a culture that is founded on false joys and dissatisfaction. Programs do little more than create a façade of hope, because our destructive actions are only the manifestation of a problem that is rooted in our culture’s purpose for existence. How do we free ourselves of the confines of consumer culture while still existing in it? Is it even possible? It would require a complete rewiring. We would have to reset our hard-drives.

I’m open to suggestions.

Get Up, Get On Up!

Last Friday I found myself surrounded by the all too familiar scent of Natty Light and awkward desperation. As a sophisticated senior, this was a social situation I had far outgrown. Nevertheless, here I was. I began to ponder exactly what I didn’t like about this party. Cheap beer, scantily dressed girls, and ego-flaunting aside, I realized my discontent really came down to one thing: the music. Now I understand that many of my peers find listening to beats about guns and hoes while grinding up on a stranger to be satisfying. I, however, do not. Neither did my friend. He went inside to ask the DJ if he could play something else. Maybe something a little less…angry? A little more dancey? A little more…Funky?! Ah, funk music. The ultimate dance music. Surely if we could get some funk playing we could turn this party around.

As I waited outside for my friend to return, a young whippersnapper wearing a white shirt two sizes too big and a gold chain around his neck came stumbling up to me. In attempt to get him to leave, I told him that my boyfriend was inside requesting a music change. After further inquiry, I informed him that we wanted to listen to some James Brown. The conversation proceeded as follows:

Him: Why would you want to listen to James Brown?

Me: Because I want to dance to James Brown.

Him: James Brown? You can’t dance to James Brown.

Me: Are you kidding me?

Him: Maybe for a song, but not for the whole night.

Me: I could dance to him all night.

Him: James Brown, really? Well don’t you like Beyonce?

Don’t you like Beyonce? What kind of question is that? How can you even compare James Brown to Beyonce? That’s like comparing apples to oranges; comparing a chocolate soufflé to cotton candy. Sure, cotton candy is alright, but the soufflé is really a rarity—something that doesn’t come around every day.

Now I have no problem with Beyonce, hip hop, or R&B. My issue lies with the fact the so many from my generation disregard the raw talent of classic musicians. James Brown, also know as the “Godfather of Soul,” has been one of the most influential figures on modern hip-hop. Not only is he the number one sampled artist in hip-hop, he is the most sampled artist ever. Ever! And the reason, according to New Black Magazine, is because of his rhythm. The horn riffs on “Funky Drummer” or “Get Up, Get Into It” aren’t harmonic, or melodic—they’re rhythmic. Dion Marshino at Helium eloquently summarizes James Brown’s influence:

“Brown’s vocal panache included a variety of catch phrases, incantations, declarations of self-confidence, and a tendency to occasionally talk rather than sing. Each of the first three attributes has been exhibited by rap MCs and can be heard in the best-known hip-hop performances of the last thirty years and the last one has, of course, become the trademark of the music itself. They key instrument of rhyming is, not surprisingly, the human voice.”

James Browns vocals are symphonies of pure rhythm; and rhythm is what hip-hop and R&B are all about.

I don’t know whether it’s a lack of education or a blatant arrogance that leads many of my peers to neglect the founding roots of modern popular music. I like to believe it is the former. Pop culture, as manifested through outlets such as MTV, rarely pays tribute to the foundations of modern popular music. Prior to Michael Jackson’s death, the media attention surrounding the “King of pop” focused primarily on his attraction to plastic surgery and his fondness for children. It wasn’t until after his death that reverence for his talent and influence emanated from the headlines.

The media is not entirely to blame, however, seeing as how it exists in a symbiotic relationship with the public; and the unfortunate reality is that the public is often more attracted to celebrity scandals than to the work of the celebrity himself. As an individual there is not much I can do to change this dynamic. So I’ll take some advice from the “hardest working man in show business” who said, “Dance as you’ll feel better.”

Weary of Leary?

The name Timothy Leary often conjures up images of LSD usage, political unrest, and the turbulent 60s. Less often is his name associated with the progressive intellectualism that underlay the social movement of the 1960s. Born in 1920, Leary was an American writer, psychologist, researcher, and professor. In 1960 while working at Harvard, Leary traveled with colleague Anthony Russo to Cuernavaca to experiment with psychedelic mushrooms. The experience had a profound impact on Leary who claimed to have learned more about human psychology during his 5 hour trip than during his 15 year of research. Shortly after, he and Russo began the Harvard Psilocybin Project in an effort to better understand the effects of psilocybin on the human mind. They continued their research with the Concord Prison Experiment, and later Leary co-founded the International Foundation for Internal Freedom, which attracted a great deal of attention and increased the market of psychedelic drugs. After being fired from Harvard, Leary continued his experiments with LSD. He authored dozens of books and traveled around America, touring college campuses and speaking at events where he promoted the use of LSD for its consciousness-expanding properties.

Notorious for encouraging youth to turn inwards and drop away from society, Leary’s influence may seem at odds with American intellectualism. Intellectualism typically exists within the realm of academia. Traditional public intellectuals, such as Samuel Huntington or Ayn Rand, either emerge from the world of academic or leave a profound footprint in it. Timothy Leary possesses an ideology that conflicts with that typical of academia, and was fired from his job as a Harvard professor. However, it is his opposition to traditional “intellectualism” that has lead to be considered a public intellectual of the 20th century. His social influence meets or surpasses that of traditional intellectuals; and his ideology, while unconventional, is nonetheless akin to the very ideology which set the foundation of modern democratic thought.

To expand upon this idea, we must first establish the role of the public intellectual in our society. In his book Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline, Richard Posner claims that “independent public intellectuals are a dying breed” and that “their public pronunciamentos have been sloppy and prejudice in ways that would never allow for their scholarship.” However, this position, as argued in William Dean’s review of the book, forces him to disregard “public intellectuals who discuss public philosophies and attitudes. These public intellectuals sometimes uncover implicit orientations and worldviews that, in turn, affect public decisions and actions.” An individual whose work has influenced both the minds and the actions of the public, regardless of their relationship to academia, has served the function of a public intellectual. It is not so much one’s status that qualifies one as a public intellectual; rather it is one’s societal function and the social results of one’s work. Timothy Leary’s ideas were principle to the social movement of the 1960s. His ideas challenged our existing social structure and in turn, affected the political and cultural attitudes of thousands of young Americans. If the role of the public intellectual in a democracy is to simply keep the pot boiling, as claimed by Stephen Mack, few public faces have done so to such a degree as Leary.

Having established Leary as a public intellectual via his social function, it is important to understand the “intellectual” aspect of his work. Leary was considered by many to be a quack, a danger to America’s youth, and a threat to democracy. Those who derived their power and identity from American’s existing social structure wanted nothing more than to shut Leary up. He was arrested numerous times for petty drug offenses and received unjust sentences. Richard Nixon labeled him “the most dangerous man in American” and a judge at one of his hearings claimed, “If he is allowed to travel freely, he will speak publically and spread his ideas.” There was a fear among those in authoritative positions—those who derived their power and sense of identity from the exiting status quo—that Leary’s ideology could be so influential as to threaten the democratic structure of America. This fear further validates the claim that Timothy Leary is a public intellectual in the most pure sense. It also exposes the contradiction between a “public intellectual” as defined by the public, and a “public intellectual” as defined by an elite class of supposed “intellectuals.”

In arguing for the decline of the public intellectual, John Donatich implies that Americans possess animosity towards intellectuals. He wonders “what a country built on headstrong individualism and the myth of self-reliance [does] with its people convinced that they know best?” In asking this, Donatich assumes intellectuals to be an elite class superior to the masses. Considered from this perspective, of course citizens are going to be “anti-intellectual.” However, I assert that Donatich is misguided in his definition of the public intellectual. As previously established, the role of the public intellectual is to inspire the public and “keep the pot boiling”. If the democratic values of individualism and self-reliance conflict with an individual’s ideology, that individual would not be considered a public intellectual. On the contrary, ideology that compliments democratic values will be respected as intellectual and revered by the American public.

First uttered at the 1967 Human Be-in in Golden Gate Park, Leary’s phase “turn on, turn in, drop out” is a paradigm for his envisioned social movement. As explained in Leary’s 1983 autobiography Flashbacks, “’Drop Out’ meant self-reliance, a discovery of one’s singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change.” In his book Your Brain is God, Leary claims that with LSD “The working person discovered that hir own body belonged, not to the state or to the moralist or to the authoritarian doctor, but to hirself.” The reason why Leary was embraced by thousands of young people engaged in the social movement of the 60s is because he was an intellectual who supported the very values they were trying to revive, the values that had been lost to government corruption. These values—individualism and self-reliance—form the framework of American democracy. Americans do not possess an anti-intellectualism, as asserted by Donatich; rather, they possess a selectivity in who constitutes a public intellectual. The factors about Leary that placed him as a threat to conventional authority were the same factors that positioned him as a public figure influencing social change. And if the ability to challenge conventional thought and affect public decision lies with the public intellectual, as asserted by Dean Williams, then Timothy Leary was nothing short of a modern day public intellectual.

Those who claim the public intellectual to be in decline are stuck in an archaic view of the intellectual. Whereas once public intellectuals rose above the masses as an elite class in and of themselves, the intellectuals of the 20th century are characterized by their influence within the society from which they emerged. Leary played a fundamental role in a massive social movement because he supported the very democratic values that—according to Donatich, at least—put traditional public intellectuals in conflict with the public. The role of the intellectual is not in decline; it has simply shifted. Timothy Leary is the quintessential public intellectual of the 20th century because he embodies this shift.

A Green Paradox

It is becoming increasingly evident that instead of sustaining the inhabitants of this planet, our current market system is rapidly leading to our demise. Atmospheric carbon levels mirror the rate of industrialization, and few among us can claim with any level of confidence that we are not en route to an ecological Armageddon.

The Western world’s reluctant acceptance of the reality of global warming has been enthusiastically accompanied by an ever pervasive faith in green technology as a socio-environmental panacea. As more people recognize that we are indeed on the brink of ecologic catastrophe, even more are turning towards the green market in hopes of technological salvation. This notion that green technology can solve our environmental problems is fraught with error, and serves to further endanger the livelihood of this planet. Perhaps its initial emergence was surrounded by altruism and contained nothing but benevolent motivations. However, the present role of green technology in our society has been that of a social pacifier. It supports the continuation of environmentally destructive habits by glorifying the very consumer culture from which it was born.

The motivation for this post came from a New York Times article I recently read about the disastrous effects of mining rare earth elements. There are seventeen rare earth elements, and two in particular—dysprosium and terbium—have recently come into the spotlight for their use in green technology. Dysprosium can make magnets in electric motors lighter by 90%, while terbium can help cut electricity usage in lights by 80%. With the boom in green products, these elements are in high demand; which pleases China, who mines 99% of the world’s supply of these elements. According to the Times, “Dysprosium prices have climbed nearly sevenfold since 2003, to $53 a pound. Terbium prices quadrupled from 2003 to 2008, peaking at $407 a pound, before slumping in the global economic crisis to $205 a pound.” And here the problems begin to emerge. Where there’s potential for profit, corruption emerges. Half of the mines in China are operated illegally, meaning they are not held to any environmental regulations. In mining for these elements, the topsoil is violently disturbed and then exposed to acid in order to extract the rare earth elements. Because the mines are not regulated, this acid washes into streams and rivers, where it destroys rice paddies, fish farms, and taints the water supply.

Due to the nature of the system that supports this industry, the emergence of green technology has resulted in even more environmentally destructive practices. It is naively optimistic to believe that a problem can be solved by the same structure that created it. Karl Marx is rarely quoted for his ecological views, but he was quite progressive for his time. Simon Butler, an columnist for Green Left Weekly, writes about “Karl Marx the Ecologist”:

Marx considered a capitalist system to be irreconcilable with environmental sustainability. The exploitation of nature, he argued, is as fundamental to the profit system as the exploitation of working people. The market system is incapable of preserving the environment for future generations because it cannot take into account the long-term requirements of people and planet. The competition between individual enterprises and industries to make a profitable return on their investment tends to exclude rational and sustainable planning.

Engels explained this destructive dynamic: “As individual capitalists are engaged in production and exchange for the sake of the immediate profit, only the nearest, most immediate results must first be taken into account.

“As long as the individual manufacturer or merchant sells a manufactured or purchased commodity with the usual coveted profit, he is satisfied and does not concern himself with what afterwards becomes of the commodity and its purchasers.”

While this is the case with nearly all capital product, the situation with China’s rare earth elements is particularly ironic because it is creating the very situation it was intended to fix. 

This post is not a plea for socialism; nor is it a criticism of green technology. Obviously our society needs more environmentally sustainable products and alternative forms of energy. The problem lies not in the technology itself, but in the belief that salvation can be found in consumer culture. Driving your Prius while drinking your $4 [fair trade] latte out of a 10% post consumer recycled paper cup does not make you a responsible citizen, it makes you trendy. Clearly we cannot rely on the State to dictate the means by which we should seek to overcome the destructive influence of a capital market. Citizen action is needed. But before we demand a social revolution, we must first undergo a personal evolution. It is imperative that we begin to take personal responsibility for our actions.