Category: Government

Hedgerows

That’s right – planting hedgerows!

For many years I lived in South Devon, England. I never thought twice about hedgerows because they were so common.

Then today I read an article in The Economist about Brexit and the one thing that was favourable was this “Brexit delivers a win for British wildlife.“

Here’s a small extract from the magazine:

No other country matches the rich heritage of hedgerows that weave across the damp (ideal for hedges) British Isles. Since the Bronze Age, Britons have reared sheep and cattle and have used hedges to mark the boundaries of fields and keep livestock in place. Some of these ancient bushes still stand. In West Penwith, one such prehistoric hedge, a gurgoe, might be over 4,000 years old. Most, though, were planted in the 18th century, when landowners enclosed the commons, an event that turned the country into a chequerboard of small, irregular fields. America, by contrast, passed a law prohibiting private landowners from enclosing public land in 1885, protecting its open ranges.

Here in Oregon hedges are not so common. But I did some research as to the cause and came upon this article by Oregon State University.

I trust it may be shared with you.

ooOOoo

A Guide to Hedgerows: Plantings That Enhance Biodiversity, Sustainability and Functionality

Pami Monnette and Jude Hobbs

EM 8721 | Revised June 2020, Reviewed 2023

An aerial photo taken above Forest Grove shows hedgerows bordering the urban growth boundary and used as buffers between fields. 
Photo: Justin Smith, © Oregon State University
This young hedgerow bordering a field features native plants that provide habitat for beneficial insects and pollinators.
Photo: Janet Donnelly, © Oregon State University

We see them at the edges of farm fields or along roads: long rows of trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses known as hedgerows. They are living fences with the ability to grow food, shelter wildlife, save water, manage weeds and look beautiful all year round.

Hedgerows are sometimes called shelter belts, windbreaks or conservation buffers. These layers of plant life enhance the beauty, productivity and biodiversity of a landscape. 

Hedgerows originated in medieval Europe and are enjoying a modern resurgence. People in England planted hawthorn cuttings and allowed them to grow about 6 feet. They were bent and trained to fill gaps in the trees, yielding a living fence. They called these fences “hagas” or hedges, form the word “hawthorn.” As the birds settled in the hawthorns and dropped seeds. more plants sprung up. Today, many farms in England are surrounded by ancient hedgerows that shelter beneficial organisms and conserve soil and water. 

Hedgerow plantings were uncommon in the early United States. In the 1930s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Shelterbelt Program briefly supported planting trees for windbreaks to prevent soil erosion in the Midwest. Today, as interest surges in sustainable farming methods, more people are turning to this age-old practice.

Hedgerows can serve several ecological functions. Among their many benefits, hedgerows:

  • Enhance ecological biodiversity.
  • Offer food for livestock, humans and wildlife.
  • Provide habitat for beneficial insects and pollinators.
  • Facilitate water conservation.
  • Provide windbreaks.
  • Help manage invasive weeds.
  • Provide erosion control and improve soil health.
  • Support the health of aquatic habitats.
  • Enhance carbon sequestration.
  • Create borders and privacy screens.
  • Reduce noise, dust, chemical drift and other types of pollution.
  • Diversify farm income.
  • Generate year-round beauty.

Let’s look at these benefits in detail.

Benefits of hedgerows

Enhance ecological biodiversity

Biodiversity describes the variety of life forms within a specific ecosystem and the relationship of these organisms to one another and the broader environment. Hedgerows can be designed to attract a wide variety of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects and plants, many of which offer beneficial relationships to each other. They also create more edges, or “ecotones,” between different habitats, which increases species diversity. Trees and shrubs provide shelter for larger mammals, and nesting sites and perches for raptors, which are important predators of rodents. Dense or thorny shrub thickets can offer songbirds a refuge to escape predators as well as a place to nest. The diverse composition and structure of a hedgerow creates a functional habitat where species experience vital interconnections with one another and the environment.

Offer food for livestock, humans and wildlife

Hedgerows provide undisturbed refuge for species of all kinds, creating wildlife corridors, travel lanes or habitat islands. Hedgerows help protect wildlife from predators and provide sheltered access to riparian zones or other water sources. These corridors are especially important in fragmented landscapes, such as fields where only a single crop is grown. Hedgerows provide shade to reduce heat stress and help to block wind currents. These measures support a healthier wildlife population. Berry-producing plants encourage insectivores, such as birds, that also prey upon common crop pests. The hedgerow habitat creates cover for wildlife so they can feed, nest and care for their young.

Provide habitat for beneficial insects and pollinators

Planting a variety of flowering trees, shrubs, forbs and perennial plants provides insect habitat, and nectar and pollen sources throughout the year for beneficial insects and pollinators. Plants in the family Umbelliferae attract parasitic wasps; predator flies such as hover flies, lacewings and ladybeetles; and true bugs, like ambush or minute pirate bugs. Flowering plants in this family include coriander, dill, fennel, parsnip, parsley and carrots. These plants are useful in the kitchen and are also very attractive to pollinators. Over 75% of successful production of food requires pollination. Increasing plant habitat for pollinator species improves fruit set, size and quality, as well as general biodiversity. Pollinator habitat also attracts beneficial insects, which prey on many crop pests. Increasing the numbers of beneficial insects can help farmers manage crop pests and cut down on insecticide use.

Facilitate water conservation

Hedgerows retain water and reduce evaporation by reducing wind speed and providing cover over the ground surface. Plants also catch and store water in their root systems, leaves and branches, slowing the rate of excess rainwater entering waterways and reducing the risk of flooding. Decaying matter from the roots, stems and branches of hedgerow plants increase the organic matter in the soil over time. This increases the soil’s ability to absorb and retain water. Planting hedgerows on hillsides helps conserve water and soil by reducing erosion. If planting near adjacent cropland, periodic root pruning can reduce competition for nutrients and water.

Provide windbreaks

Properly designed hedgerows can reduce wind speed by as much as 75% and improve crop performance. This is especially effective when plantings reach a density of 40%–50% and are planted perpendicular to the prevailing wind. Wind-resistant trees usually have flexible, wide-spreading, strong branches and low centers of gravity. Wind-tolerant shrubs often have small, thick or waxy leaves or very narrow leaves or needles, to help control moisture loss. Wind can disturb pollination and damage fruit and flowers when plant parts thrash against each other. During times when soil is exposed, a windbreak can protect topsoil from erosion. Crops under wind stress also put energy into growing stronger roots and stems, resulting in smaller yields and delayed maturity. Strong winds also cause lodging of grain and grass crops, bending the stems and making harvest more difficult. Winds dry out crops on the field edges, increasing pests such as two-spotted spider mites.

Help manage invasive weeds

Hedgerows planted along roads or between crop fields may prevent weed seeds from blowing into the field. The weed seed pods collect on hedgerow plants, where a farmer could remove and burn them. Hedges can prevent millions of weed seeds from entering the crop field. As hedgerows mature, these plantings displace invasive weeds. If well maintained, this weed management lasts the lifetime of the hedgerow.

Provide erosion control and improve soil health

Rain, irrigation, clean cultivation and vacant field borders can all increase erosion potential in an agricultural system.

Hedgerow plantings can significantly reduce the amount of soil erosion on a landscape. They can also provide a barrier to filter out pollutants, such as pesticides, and slow down sediments and organic material that can flow from farm fields into waterways. This is accomplished by increasing the surface water infiltration rate and improving soil structure around the root zone. This, in turn, decreases fertilizer runoff from farm fields. The biomass that plants shed acts as a soil conditioner and can enhance plant growth. In urban or suburban environments, hedges similarly reduce pollutants from neighboring sites.

Support aquatic habitat

Hedgerows can provide shade to riparian areas. Shade reduces water temperatures, prevents water evaporation and improves watershed quality. Though many factors influence watershed temperatures, studies have proven that lowland streams bordered by trees and tall shrubs exhibit cooler temperatures. The hedgerow’s latitude, stream aspect, leaf density and the height of its vegetation from the water surface all affect water temperature.

Enhance carbon sequestration

During photosynthesis, trees, shrubs and grasses absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, allowing the carbon to become part of the plant’s tissue. As plants die or shed tissue — either through natural processes or pruning — the carbon that was stored in the plant breaks down and enters the soil. Plants store relatively large amounts of carbon in their biomass, helping to offset some of the effects of climate change. A tree can absorb as much as
48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and can sequester, or store, 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.

Create borders and privacy screens along roads and between properties

Hedgerows are attractive borders and can block undesirable views. Evergreens offer year-round screening. When selecting plants, consider the height at maturity for optimum screening. Evergreens can be pruned to control height and density. Plant a diverse mix of species to help protect against damage from a single pest or disease.

Reduce noise, dust, chemical drift and other types of pollution

As hedgerows mature and become dense, they can create barriers to reduce noise, dust, chemical drift and other pollutants. Open canopy trees are effective barriers to dust and pesticides; air and particles slowly filter through them instead of depositing clouds of pollutants on the other side of the hedge.

Plant hedges as close as possible to any areas where pollutants are a concern. This can help alleviate neighborhood conflicts where agriculture intersects with urban areas.

Hedgerows can act to contain contaminants from urban or suburban environments and keep them from entering agricultural areas.

Diversify farm income

Trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants in a hedgerow can also serve as sources of income. Potential products include nuts, fruits, berries, leaves, flowers, seeds, bark and medicinal herbs. You can grow plants to be propagated as seeds, rootstock, cuttings and transplants. Other potential crops are nursery stock and floral materials, including ferns, broadleaf evergreens, flowers and willows grown for craft material and furniture. You can grow fruits, berries and nuts for food. Hedgerows can shelter bees and encourage a higher pollination rate. Consider planting trees for secondary wood products such as lumber, veneer, firewood, chips for bedding and mulch. Game birds such as quail, pheasant and sage grouse are attracted to hedgerows. Managed hunting can provide a potential source of food and off-season revenue for landowners.

Generate year-round beauty

Hedgerows in the landscape add continuous beauty. You can design a hedge for year-round interest, considering the color and texture of leaves and bark, bloom color and timing, and the general growth habit or form of plants.

Hedgerow design
Graphic: Kerry Wixted with graphics from Tracey Saxby, IAN Image Library, courtesy of the Integration and Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Native red-flowering currant adds beauty to a hedgerow.
Photo: Janet Donnelly, © Oregon State University

Establishing and maintaining hedgerows

Whether in rural or urban settings, the principles of planning a hedgerow are the same: Evaluate the site, determine what you would like to accomplish with the plantings, match the right plant with the right place, and properly prepare the site.

Design

There are many essential components to consider when designing a multifunctional hedgerow. The first step is to observe the site where the hedge is to be planted and take into consideration the ecological and environmental conditions listed below. These elements influence the design, plant selection, location and the size of the area to be planted. Although a single line of trees will provide some benefits, four or more rows of plants are optimal for windbreaks, water and soil conservation, wildlife habitat and general biodiversity. When it works for the situation, place plants tallest at maturity in the center row, with shorter ones inter-planted between and along the edges. A diverse selection of plant sizes and characteristics is most beneficial. When possible, orient rows perpendicular to prevailing winds.

Hedgerows following land contours create meandering lines on the landscape, producing a natural appearance and larger buffer for wildlife habitat. If the goal is to attract pollinator species, reserve approximately one half-acre for every 40 acres planted in crops.

Plant selection

Plant a wide variety of multi-tiered plants for maximum habitat. Avoid varieties that are susceptible to common pests and diseases and choose plants that are non-invasive. Some perennial species such as blackberry can provide excellent wildlife habitat and food crops but are highly invasive and require frequent maintenance. See the plant lists on page 7 for plantings suited to the Pacific Northwest.

When selecting plants, consider the conditions plants need to survive in specific habitats:

  • Range: place of origin (indigenous, native/non-native).
  • Hardiness zones: frost dates.
  • Light requirements: sun or shade.
  • Size of plants at maturity, growth.
  • Soil type (pH, fertility, erosion concerns).
  • Drainage.
  • Water movement and moisture needs.
  • Planting time.
  • Bloom time: seasonal interest.
  • Day length.
  • Productivity.
  • Tolerance to heat, cold, salt, drought, pollution, wind and wild or domestic animals.
  • Evergreen or deciduous.
  • Plant structure: form or shape, texture, leaf and bark type.
  • Edible or poisonous: what parts.
  • Insect and disease resistance.
  • Plant size, costs and availability.
  • Maintenance needed.
  • Allellopathy: a chemical inhibitor of one plant to another which can impact germination or plant growth.

Ultimately, place plants together that have similar soil, water, sun and drainage needs.

General planting recommendations:

  • Plant trees and shrubs about 6 to 8 feet apart in rows 8 to 10 feet apart.
  • Plant one or two rows of tall trees flanked by a row or two of shrubs. A 20-foot wide hedgerow can have two rows of shrubs flanking a row of trees.
  • Hedgerows work best for wildlife when they are wider than 20 feet.
  • Depending on the site’s prevailing winds, a winter windbreak could have at least two rows of evergreen trees and a row of deciduous trees or shrubs. A summer windbreak could have at least one row of tall deciduous trees and a row of deciduous shrubs.
  • Make sure the planting holes are deep and wide enough to accept and cover the roots of each plant. Be sure to water in each new planting.
  • In a small area, place a 3-inch layer of straw mulch or cardboard around each tree and shrub after planting to discourage weeds and encourage plant survival.

Soil preparation

Soil preparation is one of the keys to plant survival. On a smaller site, an easy way to establish planting areas in existing grass or pasture is to apply a thin layer of compost or manure, followed by several layers of cardboard, and mulch such as straw or leaves. Worms are attracted to the manure and will work over the winter to decompose grasses and fertilize the soil. However, this method may not be practical on a large scale. In this instance, prepare the area for planting by tilling the ground in spring and planting an early cover crop such as crimson clover, followed by buckwheat. In late summer, till or disc in the cover crop and replant an overwintering cover crop such as crimson clover, field peas or vetch. Cover crops improve soil fertility, reduce weeds, stabilize the soil and attract beneficial insects. Till again the following spring and install the first set of plantings for the hedgerow.

Another option for sites with high weed pressure is solarization. Closely mow the ground and put down UV-stabilized anti-condensation greenhouse plastic in midsummer for several weeks to kill the weeds. After solarization, remove the plastic and follow with a fall planting.

Planting time

In more temperate environments, fall planting allows roots to become established before foliage emerges and gives plants the benefit of winter rains. In extreme cold climates, early spring may be the ideal time for planting. At the time of planting, apply amendments such as compost or manure as a top dressing.

Irrigation

To increase the success rate of your hedgerow planting, provide supplemental water for the first two or three years. Irrigate once a week during the heat of the summer during the first year. For the second year, water every two weeks. In the third year, irrigate once a month. Irrigation needs depend on the location and the plants selected. Be sure to water deeply to encourage deep root growth. Most hedgerow plantings may not survive if they do not get supplemental water in the first few years. Water can be supplied by swales, furrows, flood, drip irrigation or hand watering. If the hedgerow is next to cropland, overhead irrigation from the crop can be extended to water the hedge.

Keeping out weedy plants and destructive wildlife

One of the biggest challenges in establishing a hedgerow is keeping unwanted plants from taking over the new plantings. There are a variety of techniques to inhibit these weedy plants. The simplest method is to leave alleys between plant rows for mowing, cultivation or mulching until plants are well established. Ideally, an area 6 to 8 feet wide around the hedgerow should be mowed, flailed or tilled for weed management, fire protection and rodent control. It is also important to mulch heavily with a minimum of 3 inches of leaves, straw, sawdust or cardboard around each plant. As plants mature, they will eventually shade out most annual weeds. This is the ideal time to infill with low-growing, shade-tolerant plants.

If needed, protect plants from beaver and nutria with hardware cloth, and use partially buried plastic-coated cardboard or tubing around tree trunks to protect from voles and mice. If applying pesticides, follow the label in order to protect riparian zones along rivers, creeks and ponds from contamination.

Managing a hedgerow in the first few years is similar to managing a crop. Good weed management during establishment results in less labor to control weeds in seasons to come.

Cost of establishment

Planting hedgerows does not have to be expensive. Seedling plants are available at low cost, and you can propagate new plants from existing plantings. The larger the plant, the sooner it will reach maturity, which is especially important in creating a fast-growing privacy screen. This can be achieved by purchasing dormant bareroot plants and 1-gallon potted plants or larger. Remember, these larger plants will most likely require summer irrigation. Government programs are available to assist landowners with hedgerow development. Many counties have tax exemption programs for riparian lands, along with wildlife habitat conservation and management programs. See “Incentive programs to help with hedgerow establishment” and Estimated Costs To Establish Pollinator Hedgerows, in “Resources,” pages 9–10.

Conclusion

A hedgerow is a long-term commitment. With proper planning and care, it will take approximately four to eight years to establish a hedgerow and 30 or more years for it to reach maturity. To encourage success, draft a plan with planting installments for each year, depending on your goals and budget.

Hedgerows in rural agricultural or urban settings provide many benefits that increase over time, including the opportunity for supplemental income. With benefits for wildlife, humans and the planet, hedgerows are a practice that has stood the test of time.

Hedgerow plants

Hedgerows can contain native and non-native plants, although plants should not be invasive. The following trees, shrubs, groundcovers and perennial plants are appropriate for hedgerows in the Pacific Northwest. Remember to consider proper site selection and plant requirements. Plants that tolerate wet soil are indicated by an asterisk (*).

Sun-tolerant plants under 25 feet

  • Arbutus unedo Strawberry tree
  • Aronia Chokeberry Schubert
  • Baccharis pilularis consanguinea Coyote brush
  • Ceanothus velutinus Tobacco brush
  • Cornus stolonifera Red twig dogwood
  • Diospyros kaki Japanese persimmon
  • Diospyros virginiana American persimmon
  • Elaeagnus multiflora Goumi
  • Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn olive
  • Ficus carica Fig
  • Fuchsia magellanica Hardy fuschia
  • Lonicera caerulea Blue honeyberry
  • Lonicera involucrata Twinberry
  • Malus fusca West Coast crabapple
  • Malus sp. Apple
  • Morus Mulberry
  • Myrica pensylvanica Bayberry
  • Oemleria cerasiformis Osoberry
  • Philadelphus lewisii Mock orange
  • Prunus avium Cherry
  • Prunus domestica Plum
  • Pyrus pyrifolia Asian pear
  • Ribes sanguineum Red-flowering currant
  • Ribes divaricatum Black gooseberry*
  • Ribes nigrum Black currant*
  • Rosa nutkana Nootka rose
  • Salix fluviatilis Columbia River willow*
  • Salix hookeriana Hooker’s willow*
  • Sambucus cerulea Blue elderberry*
  • Spiraea douglasii Western spiraea*
  • Vaccinium corymbosum Blueberry*
  • Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen huckleberry
  • Viburnum opulus Highbush cranberry

Sun-tolerant plants 25+ feet tall

  • Abies grandis Grand fir
  • Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple
  • Alnus rubra Red alder*
  • Arbutus menziesii Madrone
  • Asimina Pawpaw
  • Calocedrus decurrens Incense-cedar
  • Castanea Chestnut
  • Chrysolepis chrysophylla Golden chinkapin
  • Diospyros virginiana Persimmon
  • Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash*
  • Juglans regia English walnut
  • Picea species Spruce
  • Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine
  • Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood
  • Prunus subcordata Klamath plum*
  • Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir
  • Quercus garryana Oregon white oak
  • Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust
  • Thuja plicata Western redcedar

Groundcovers

  • Fragaria chiloensis Strawberry
  • Gaultheria shallon Salal
  • Mahonia nervosa Oregon grape
  • Polystichum munitum Sword fern
  • Vaccinium vitis idaea Lingonberry

Vines

  • Lonicera Honeysuckle
  • Akebia Five-fingered akebia*

Plants for pond edges

  • Typha latifolia Cattail*
  • Ledum glandulosum Labrador tea

Plants that tolerate shade

  • Chrysolepis chrysophylla Golden chinkapin
  • Cornus nuttallii Western flowering dogwood*
  • Corylus cornuta Hazel*
  • Physocarpus capitatus Ninebark
  • Polystichum munitum Sword fern
  • Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry*
  • Prunus virginiana Chokecherry

Plants for partial shade to shade

  • Acer circinatum Vine maple *
  • Amelanchier alnifolia Serviceberry
  • Berberis aquifolium Oregon grape
  • Gaultheria shallon Salal
  • Cornus stolonifera Red-osier dogwood
  • Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray
  • Lonicera involucrata Twinberry
  • Oemleria cerasiformis Indian plum
  • Philadelphus lewisii Mock orange
  • Rhamnus purshiana Cascara sagrada
  • Taxus brevifolia Western yew*
  • Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen huckleberry

Edge plantings

  • Achillea millefolium Yarrow
  • Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick
  • Berberis nervosa Cascade Oregon grape
  • Calendula officinalis Calendula
  • Cichorium intybus Chicory
  • Foeniculum vulgare Fennel
  • Fragaria chiloensis Wild strawberry
  • Gaultheria shallon Salal
  • Lavandula angustifolia English lavender
  • Medicago sativa Alfalfa

Nuts

  • Carya illinoinensis Northern pecans
  • Carya ovata Shagbark hickory
  • Castanea Chestnuts
  • Ginkgo biloba Gingko
  • Juglans ailantifolia Heartnut
  • Juglans regia English Walnut
  • Xanthoceras sorbifolium Yellowhorn

Plants for arid environments

Plantings around vineyards

Some flowering plants attract specific kinds of beneficials, for example, carnivorous flies (Oregon sunshine), predatory bugs (stinging nettle) and Anagrus wasps (sagebrush). Research shows trends of reduced pest abundance and increased beneficial insect diversity and abundance in vineyards with a diversity of native flowering plants compared to vineyards lacking native plants.

  • Artemisia spp. Sagebrush
  • Chrysothamnus, Ericameria Rabbitbrush
  • Eriogonum compositum Northern buckwheat
  • Eriogonum niveum Snow buckwheat
  • Eriogonum elatum Tall buckwheat
  • Clematis ligusticifolia Western clematis
  • Eriophyllum lanatum Oregon sunshine
  • Crepis atribarba Slender hawksbeard
  • Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed
  • Achillea millefolium Yarrow

Arid trees

  • Juniperus occidentalis Western juniper
  • Larix occidentalis Western larch
  • Picea pungens Blue spruce
  • Pinus flexilis Limber pine
  • Pinus edulis Pinyon pine
  • Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa pine
  • Pinus nigra Austrian pine
  • Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood

Shrubs

  • Artemisia tridentata Big sagebrush
  • Atriplex canescens Four-wing saltbush
  • Cercocarpus montanus Mountain mahogany
  • Chamaebatiaria Desert sweet millefolium
  • Ericameria nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush
  • Cornus stolonifera Red-osier dogwood
  • Mahonia repens Creeping Oregon grape
  • Potentilla fruticosa Shrubby cinquefoil
  • Prunus emarginata Bitter cherry
  • Prunus virginiana Chokecherry ‘Schubert’
  • Purshia tridentata Antelope bitterbush
  • Rosa woodsii Woods’ rose
  • Shepherdia argentea Silver buffaloberry
  • Shepherdia canadensis Russet buffaloberry

Herbaceous perennials

  • Antennaria species Cat’s ears
  • Anaphalis margaritacea Pearly everlasting
  • Aster alpinus Dwarf alpine aster
  • Aurinia saxatilis Basket of gold
  • Delosperma species Ice plant
  • Echinacea purpurea Purple coneflower
  • Ericameria nauseosa Rubber rabbitbrush
  • Erigeron annuus Fleabane daisy
  • Eriogonum umbellatum Sulfur buckwheat
  • Eriophyllum lanatum Oregon sunshine
  • Kniphofia uvaria Torch lily
  • Lavandula angustifolia English lavender
  • Linum lewisii Flax
  • Penstemon pinifolius Pineleaf penstemon
  • Rudbeckia species Black-eyed Susan
  • Salvia dorii Purple sage
  • Sedum spurium and album Stonecrops
  • Sphaeralcea munroana Globemallow
  • Rosa woodsii Woods’ rose
  • Yucca glauca Narrow leaf yucca

Groundcovers

  • Juniperus Savin juniper
  • Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick
  • Sedum Stonecrop
  • Sempervivum Hens and chicks
  • Thymus pseudolanuginosus Wooly thyme
Jason Lueker, a horticulture student, helps maintain the hedgerow at the Oak Creek Center for Urban Horticulture at Oregon State University in Corvallis.
Photo: Hannah O’Leary, © Oregon State University
Mulching in a hedgerow’s early years controls weeds, which helps the plants become established.
Photo: Hannah O’Leary, © Oregon State University
A hedgerow at a Willamette Valley farm combines tall trees with shrubs and flowering plants.
Photo: Janet Donnelly, © Oregon State University

Incentive programs to help with hedgerow establishment

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

In exchange for removing environmentally sensitive land from production and establishing permanent resource-conserving plant species, farmers and ranchers are paid an annual rental rate along with other federal and state incentives. This program is administered through the USDA Farm Service Agency and local Soil and Water Conservation districts.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program

This program provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers in order to address natural resource concerns and deliver environmental benefits such as improved water and air quality, conserved ground and surface water, reduced soil erosion and sedimentation or improved or created wildlife habitat. The program is administered through the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service via local field offices.

Resources

Agencies

Books and publications

  • Earnshaw, S. Community Alliance with Family Farmers. Hedgerows and Farmscaping for California Agriculture: A Resource Guide For Farmers.
  • Guard, J.B. Wetland Plants of Oregon and Washington. 2010. Lone Pine Publishing.
  • Imhoff, D. and R. Carra. Farming With The Wild: Enhancing Biodiversity on Farms and Ranches. 2011. Sierra Club Books.
  • Kruckenberg, A. Gardening With Natives of the Pacific Northwest. 1982. University of Washington Press.
  • Lee-Mäder, E., J. Hopwood, M. Vaughan, S. Hoffman Black and L. Morandin. Farming with Native Beneficial Insects: Ecological Pest Control Solutions. 2014. Storey Publishing.
  • Link, R. Landscaping for Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest. 1999. University of Washington Press,
  • Mader, E., M. Shepherd, M. Vaughan, S. Black, G. LeBuhn, Attracting Native Pollinators. 2011. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
  • Martin, A., H.S. Zim, A.L. Nelson. American Wildlife and Plants: A Guide To Wildlife Food Habits. 1951. Dover Publications.
  • National Center for Appropriate Technology, Oregon Tilth and The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Conservation Buffers in Organic System: Western States Implementation Guide. March 2014.
  • Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. 2016. Lone Pine Publishing.
  • Rodriguez, O. and R. Dufour. A Pictorial Guide to Hedgerow Plants for Beneficial Insects, ATTRA — Sustainable Agriculture Program.
  • Rose, R., C.E.C. Chachulski, D.L. Haase. Propagation of Pacific Northwest Native Plants. 1998. Oregon State University Press.
  • The Xerces Society. Estimated Costs To Establish Pollinator Hedgerows.

Pollinator guides and publications

ooOOoo

This is a fantastic resource and my hope is that it will be read far and wide. We find it very inspiring here in Southern Oregon.

Are we asking too much of our dogs?

We have never thought of this before but the question is a valid one.

The article, which was presented by The Conversation, raised the question. As you will see the article starts with the sentence “Americans love dogs.” To my mind, it is many more people than Americans who love dogs. Let’s read the article.

ooOOoo

Americans are asking too much of their dogs

Some people appreciate relationships with pets to combat loneliness – but others simply prefer dogs’ company. Catherine Falls Commercial/Moment via Getty Images

Margret Grebowicz, Missouri University of Science and Technology

Americans love dogs.

Nearly half of U.S. households have one, and practically all owners see pets as part of the family – 51% say pets belong “as much as a human member.” The pet industry keeps generating more and more jobs, from vets to trainers, to influencers. Schools cannot keep up with the demand for veterinarians.

It all seems part of what Mark Cushing, a lawyer and lobbyist for veterinary issues, calls “the pet revolution”: the more and more privileged place that pets occupy in American society. In his 2020 book “Pet Nation,” he argues that the internet has caused people to become more lonely, and this has made them focus more intensely on their pets – filling in for human relationships.

I would argue that something different is happening, however, particularly since the COVID-19 lockdown: Loving dogs has become an expression not of loneliness but of how unhappy many Americans are with society and other people.

In my own book, “Rescue Me,” I explore how today’s dog culture is more a symptom of our suffering as a society than a cure for it. Dogs aren’t just being used as a substitute for people. As a philosopher who studies the relationships between animals, humans and the environment, I believe Americans are turning to dogs to alleviate the erosion of social life itself. For some owners, dogs simply offer more satisfying relationships than other people do.

And I am no different. I live with three dogs, and my love for them has driven me to research the culture of dog ownership in an effort to understand myself and other humans better. By nature, dogs are masters of social life who can communicate beyond the boundaries of their species. But I believe many Americans are expecting their pets to address problems that they cannot fix.

Dogs over people

During the pandemic, people often struggled with the monotony of spending too much time cooped up with other humans – children, romantic partners, roommates. Meanwhile, relationships with their dogs seemed to flourish.

Rescuing shelter animals grew in popularity, and on social media people celebrated being at home with their pets. Dog content on Instagram and Pinterest now commonly includes hashtags like #DogsAreBetterThanPeople and #IPreferDogsToPeople.

“The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog” appears on merchandise all over e-commerce sites such as Etsy, Amazon and Redbubble.

One 2025 study found that dog owners tend to rate their pets more highly than their human loved ones in several areas, such as companionship and support. They also experienced fewer negative interactions with their dogs than with the closest people in their lives, including children, romantic partners and relatives.

The late primatologist Jane Goodall celebrated her 90th birthday with 90 dogs. She stated in an interview with Stephen Colbert that she preferred dogs to chimps, because chimps were too much like people. https://www.youtube.com/embed/3xGvLApNrFQ?wmode=transparent&start=0 Jane Goodall said she appreciates dogs for their “unconditional love.”

Fraying fabric

This passion for dogs seems to be growing as America’s social fabric unravels – which began long before the pandemic.

In 1972, 46% of Americans said “most people can be trusted.” By 2018, that percentage dropped to 34%. Americans report seeing their friends less than they used to, a phenomenon called the “friendship recession,” and avoid having conversations with strangers because they expect the conversation to go badly. People are spending more time at home.

Today, millennials make up the largest percentage of pet owners. Some cultural commentators argue dogs are especially important for this generation because other traditional markers of stability and adulthood – a mortgage, a child – feel out of reach or simply undesirable. According to the Harris Poll, a marketing research firm, 43% of Americans would prefer a pet to a child.

Amid those pressures, many people turn to the comfort of a pet – but the expectations for what dogs can bring to our lives are becoming increasingly unreasonable.

For some people, dogs are a way to feel loved, to relieve pressures to have kids, to fight the drudgery of their job, to reduce the stress of the rat race and to connect with the outdoors. Some expect pet ownership to improve their physical and mental health.

A woman with short brunette hair sits on the floor in front of a sliding door and balcony, as a black dog sits beside her and looks at her.
Even years after the pandemic lockdown, many people are spending more time at home – often with pets. curtoicurto/iStock via Getty Images Plus

And it works, to a degree. Studies have found dog people to be “warmer” and happier than cat people. Interacting with pets can improve your health and may even offer some protection against cognitive decline. Dog-training programs in prisons appear to reduce recidivism rates.

Unreasonable expectations

But expecting that dogs will fill the social and emotional gaps in our lives is actually an obstacle to dogs’ flourishing, and human flourishing as well.

In philosophical terms, we could call this an extractive relationship: Humans are using dogs for their emotional labor, extracting things from them that they cannot get elsewhere or simply no longer wish to. Just like natural resource extraction, extractive relationships eventually become unsustainable.

The late cultural theorist Lauren Berlant argued that the present stage of capitalism creates a dynamic called “slow death,” a cycle in which “life building and the attrition of life are indistinguishable.” Keeping up is so exhausting that, in order to maintain that life, we need to do things that result in our slow degradation: Work becomes drudgery under unsustainable workloads, and the experience of dating suffers under the unhealthy pressure to have a partner.

Similarly, today’s dog culture is leading to unhealthy and unsustainable dynamics. Veterinarians are concerned that the rise of the “fur baby” lifestyle, in which people treat pets like human children, can harm animals, as owners seek unnecessary veterinary care, tests and medications. Pets staying at home alone while owners work suffer from boredom, which can cause chronic psychological distress and health problems. And as the number of pets goes up, many people wind up giving up their animal, overcrowding shelters.

So what should be done? Some philosophers and activists advocate for pet abolition, arguing that treating any animals as property is ethically indefensible.

This is a hard case to make – especially with dog lovers. Dogs were the first animal that humans domesticated. They have evolved beside us for as long as 40,000 years, and are a central piece of the human story. Some scientists argue that dogs made us human, not the other way around.

Perhaps we can reconfigure aspects of home, family and society to be better for dogs and humans alike – more accessible health care and higher-quality food, for example. A world more focused on human thriving would be more focused on pets’ thriving, too. But that would make for a very different America than this one.

Margret Grebowicz, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities, Missouri University of Science and Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

I do not recognise the unhealthy culture as mentioned four paragraphs above. But Jeannie and me do understand and believe the alternative: “Some scientists argue that dogs made us human, not the other way around.”

I’ve said it many times before but perhaps some of our newer readers haven’t heard the fact that when I met Jean in 2007 she was looking after twenty-three dogs, and numerous cats, and it was pure magic. In 2008 I went to Mexico, where Jean lived, with Pharaoh. Then in 2010 we came north to Arizona to be married. We had sixteen dogs and seven cats with us.

The recent full moon

Some beautiful photos of the last full moon.

There was something really special about the last full moon. We watched as the moon rose on the very early nights of February, 2026 and I wished I had taken some photos. But no problem as YouTube had captured the images of the moon taken by others.

The Snow Moon in 2026 was the full moon that lit up the night sky on February 1, 2026, reaching its peak illumination around 5:09 p.m. EST (around 22:09 UTC) that evening. Because the moon appears full for a couple of nights around that moment, it was visible as a bright, full lunar disk on the nights of February 1 and 2. It’s traditionally called the “Snow Moon” because February is usually one of the snowiest months in the Northern Hemisphere. Here are some gorgeous images from our talented community of photographers. Enjoy them!

Other stars, other worlds.

The science of looking at other worlds is amazing.

With so much going wrong, primarily politically, in the world, I just love turning to news about distant places; and by distant I mean hugely so. That is why I am republishing this item from The Conversation about other stars.

ooOOoo

NASA’s Pandora telescope will study stars in detail to learn about the exoplanets orbiting them

A new NASA mission will study exoplanets around distant stars. European Space Agency, CC BY-SA

Daniel Apai, University of Arizona

On Jan. 11, 2026, I watched anxiously at the tightly controlled Vandenberg Space Force Base in California as an awe-inspiring SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carried NASA’s new exoplanet telescope, Pandora, into orbit.

Exoplanets are worlds that orbit other stars. They are very difficult to observe because – seen from Earth – they appear as extremely faint dots right next to their host stars, which are millions to billions of times brighter and drown out the light reflected by the planets. The Pandora telescope will join and complement NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope in studying these faraway planets and the stars they orbit.

I am an astronomy professor at the University of Arizona who specializes in studies of planets around other stars and astrobiology. I am a co-investigator of Pandora and leading its exoplanet science working group. We built Pandora to shatter a barrier – to understand and remove a source of noise in the data – that limits our ability to study small exoplanets in detail and search for life on them.

Observing exoplanets

Astronomers have a trick to study exoplanet atmospheres. By observing the planets as they orbit in front of their host stars, we can study starlight that filters through their atmospheres.

These planetary transit observations are similar to holding a glass of red wine up to a candle: The light filtering through will show fine details that reveal the quality of the wine. By analyzing starlight filtered through the planets’ atmospheres, astronomers can find evidence for water vapor, hydrogen, clouds and even search for evidence of life. Researchers improved transit observations in 2002, opening an exciting window to new worlds.

When a planet passes in front of its star, astronomers can measure the dip in brightness, and see how the light filtering through the planet’s atmosphere changes.

For a while, it seemed to work perfectly. But, starting from 2007, astronomers noted that starspots – cooler, active regions on the stars – may disturb the transit measurements.

In 2018 and 2019, then-Ph.D. student Benjamin V. Rackham, astrophysicist Mark Giampapa and I published a series of studies showing how darker starspots and brighter, magnetically active stellar regions can seriously mislead exoplanets measurements. We dubbed this problem “the transit light source effect.”

Most stars are spotted, active and change continuously. Ben, Mark and I showed that these changes alter the signals from exoplanets. To make things worse, some stars also have water vapor in their upper layers – often more prominent in starspots than outside of them. That and other gases can confuse astronomers, who may think that they found water vapor in the planet.

In our papers – published three years before the 2021 launch of the James Webb Space Telescope – we predicted that the Webb cannot reach its full potential. We sounded the alarm bell. Astronomers realized that we were trying to judge our wine in light of flickering, unstable candles.

The birth of Pandora

For me, Pandora began with an intriguing email from NASA in 2018. Two prominent scientists from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Elisa Quintana and Tom Barclay, asked to chat. They had an unusual plan: They wanted to build a space telescope very quickly to help tackle stellar contamination – in time to assist Webb. This was an exciting idea, but also very challenging. Space telescopes are very complex, and not something that you would normally want to put together in a rush.

The Pandora spacecraft with an exoplanet and two stars in the background
Artist’s concept of NASA’s Pandora Space Telescope. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Conceptual Image Lab, CC BY

Pandora breaks with NASA’s conventional model. We proposed and built Pandora faster and at a significantly lower cost than is typical for NASA missions. Our approach meant keeping the mission simple and accepting somewhat higher risks.

What makes Pandora special?

Pandora is smaller and cannot collect as much light as its bigger brother Webb. But Pandora will do what Webb cannot: It will be able to patiently observe stars to understand how their complex atmospheres change.

By staring at a star for 24 hours with visible and infrared cameras, it will measure subtle changes in the star’s brightness and colors. When active regions in the star rotate in and out of view, and starspots form, evolve and dissipate, Pandora will record them. While Webb very rarely returns to the same planet in the same instrument configuration and almost never monitors their host stars, Pandora will revisit its target stars 10 times over a year, spending over 200 hours on each of them. https://www.youtube.com/embed/Inxe5Bgarj0?wmode=transparent&start=0 NASA’s Pandora mission will revolutionize the study of exoplanet atmospheres.

With that information, our Pandora team will be able to figure out how the changes in the stars affect the observed planetary transits. Like Webb, Pandora will observe the planetary transit events, too. By combining data from Pandora and Webb, our team will be able to understand what exoplanet atmospheres are made of in more detail than ever before.

After the successful launch, Pandora is now circling Earth about every 90 minutes. Pandora’s systems and functions are now being tested thoroughly by Blue Canyon Technologies, Pandora’s primary builder.

About a week after launch, control of the spacecraft will transition to the University of Arizona’s Multi-Mission Operation Center in Tucson, Arizona. Then the work of our science teams begins in earnest and we will begin capturing starlight filtered through the atmospheres of other worlds – and see them with a new, steady eye.

Daniel Apai, Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Astronomy and Planetary Sciences, University of Arizona

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

It may not be for everyone but for me I find this news from NASA incredible. Well done The Conversation for publishing this article.

The downside of technology

A recent article in The Conversation prompted today’s post.

More and more I get concerned at some of the ways we are going.

ooOOoo

Deepfakes leveled up in 2025 – here’s what’s coming next

AI image and video generators now produce fully lifelike content. AI-generated image by Siwei Lyu using Google Gemini 3

Siwei Lyu, University at Buffalo

Over the course of 2025, deepfakes improved dramatically. AI-generated faces, voices and full-body performances that mimic real people increased in quality far beyond what even many experts expected would be the case just a few years ago. They were also increasingly used to deceive people.

For many everyday scenarios — especially low-resolution video calls and media shared on social media platforms — their realism is now high enough to reliably fool nonexpert viewers. In practical terms, synthetic media have become indistinguishable from authentic recordings for ordinary people and, in some cases, even for institutions.

And this surge is not limited to quality. The volume of deepfakes has grown explosively: Cybersecurity firm DeepStrike estimates an increase from roughly 500,000 online deepfakes in 2023 to about 8 million in 2025, with annual growth nearing 900%.

I’m a computer scientist who researches deepfakes and other synthetic media. From my vantage point, I see that the situation is likely to get worse in 2026 as deepfakes become synthetic performers capable of reacting to people in real time.

Dramatic improvements

Several technical shifts underlie this dramatic escalation. First, video realism made a significant leap thanks to video generation models designed specifically to maintain temporal consistency. These models produce videos that have coherent motion, consistent identities of the people portrayed, and content that makes sense from one frame to the next. The models disentangle the information related to representing a person’s identity from the information about motion so that the same motion can be mapped to different identities, or the same identity can have multiple types of motions.

These models produce stable, coherent faces without the flicker, warping or structural distortions around the eyes and jawline that once served as reliable forensic evidence of deepfakes.

Second, voice cloning has crossed what I would call the “indistinguishable threshold.” A few seconds of audio now suffice to generate a convincing clone – complete with natural intonation, rhythm, emphasis, emotion, pauses and breathing noise. This capability is already fueling large-scale fraud. Some major retailers report receiving over 1,000 AI-generated scam calls per day. The perceptual tells that once gave away synthetic voices have largely disappeared.

Third, consumer tools have pushed the technical barrier almost to zero. Upgrades from OpenAI’s Sora 2 and Google’s Veo 3 and a wave of startups mean that anyone can describe an idea, let a large language model such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini draft a script, and generate polished audio-visual media in minutes. AI agents can automate the entire process. The capacity to generate coherent, storyline-driven deepfakes at a large scale has effectively been democratized.

This combination of surging quantity and personas that are nearly indistinguishable from real humans creates serious challenges for detecting deepfakes, especially in a media environment where people’s attention is fragmented and content moves faster than it can be verified. There has already been real-world harm – from misinformation to targeted harassment and financial scams – enabled by deepfakes that spread before people have a chance to realize what’s happening. https://www.youtube.com/embed/syNN38cu3Vw?wmode=transparent&start=0 AI researcher Hany Farid explains how deepfakes work and how good they’re getting.

The future is real time

Looking forward, the trajectory for next year is clear: Deepfakes are moving toward real-time synthesis that can produce videos that closely resemble the nuances of a human’s appearance, making it easier for them to evade detection systems. The frontier is shifting from static visual realism to temporal and behavioral coherence: models that generate live or near-live content rather than pre-rendered clips.

Identity modeling is converging into unified systems that capture not just how a person looks, but how they move, sound and speak across contexts. The result goes beyond “this resembles person X,” to “this behaves like person X over time.” I expect entire video-call participants to be synthesized in real time; interactive AI-driven actors whose faces, voices and mannerisms adapt instantly to a prompt; and scammers deploying responsive avatars rather than fixed videos.

As these capabilities mature, the perceptual gap between synthetic and authentic human media will continue to narrow. The meaningful line of defense will shift away from human judgment. Instead, it will depend on infrastructure-level protections. These include secure provenance such as media signed cryptographically, and AI content tools that use the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity specifications. It will also depend on multimodal forensic tools such as my lab’s Deepfake-o-Meter.

Simply looking harder at pixels will no longer be adequate.

Siwei Lyu, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering; Director, UB Media Forensic Lab, University at Buffalo

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

I hope with all my heart that lines of defense will rise to the challenge.

Picking a fight ….

…. with a mathematical function!

This is another republication of a George Monbiot post. The title of his post is Total Futility Rate.

It is another great article!

ooOOoo

Total Futility Rate

Posted on15th December 2025

Let’s focus our campaigning on things we can actually change.

By George Monbiot, published as a BlueSky thread, 15th December 2025

Because the issue of population change is so widely misunderstood, I’ll seek to lay it out simply. This note explains why there is almost nothing anyone can do to change the global population trajectory, both as numbers rise, then as they fall.

The residual rise is due to:

A. The birth rate 60-100 years ago, which created a larger current base population. This means more children being born even as birth rates are in radical decline. The global total fertility rate, by the way, is now 2.2, just above the replacement rate of 2.1.

B. Infant mortality has declined very fast and longevity has risen very fast. Again, there’s nothing you can do about either of those things and, I hope, nothing you would want to.

All women should have total reproductive freedom and full access to modern birth control. Because it’s a fundamental right. Not because old men on other continents want them to have fewer children. Even if total reproductive freedom became universal now, it would scarcely nudge the curve, due to the factors mentioned above.

Before long, people will be fretting instead about the downwave, a very rapid decline in populations as the impact of 60+ years of falling birth rates overtakes the effects mentioned above. There’s almost nothing we can do about that either. It’s about as locked in as any human behaviour can be. As the opportunity costs of childcare rise (i.e. as prosperity increases), the birth rate declines.

Of course, if economic and social life collapsed, the process might go into reverse, and birth rates could be expected to rise again. But is that really what you want? For my part, I’m heartily sick of people who think collapse is the answer to anything.

In the short run, we can survive the decline in wealthy countries by reopening the door to immigrants, which would also offer sanctuary to people fleeing from the climate breakdown and conflict we’ve caused overseas. Two wins, in other words. In the long run, we’ll steadily shuffle away.

Whether you think that’s good or bad will not affect the outcome. I see demographic change as an underlying factor, like gravity, we simply have to adapt to as well as we can. If you want to pick a fight with a mathematical function, be my guest. But it seems to me as if you’re wasting your time.

But surely there’s no harm in it? Surely we can seek, however hopelessly, to change the population trajectory while also campaigning against environmental breakdown, inequality, injustice? Some people who worry about population do. But in my experience, most fixate on population to the exclusion of other issues.

Something must be done about them breeding too fast, rather than us consuming too fast. All too often, residual population growth is used as a scapegoat to shift blame from rich-world impacts, which means that the people in places where growth is still occurring are themselves scapegoated. The result, broadly speaking, is wealthy white people pointing the finger at much poorer Black and Brown people and saying, “You’re the problem.” It’s more than a distraction, it’s a grim and sometimes racist alternative to effective action. It’s an excuse for inaction.

So yes, do both if you want to, while being aware that one activity is useful and the other is futile. But be aware that for most population obsessives, it’s either/or, and is used to avoid moral responsibility and effective citizenship.

http://www.monbiot.com

ooOOoo

If you read this you will understand why Mr Monbiot explains clearly the changes in the global demographics: That the global population is falling. My own guess is that in the lifespans of those who today are in their teens, the global population will be remarkably lower. I can’t forecast the changes that will bring about but I’m certain they will be significant.

George’s last point is key “(It) is used to avoid moral responsibility and effective citizenship.“

‘Tolly’ finds something really special

I’m indebted to George Monbiot for this article, and ‘Tolly’ as a nickname for Iain Tolhurst.

Many articles from people that I follow online pass through my ‘inbox’.

But there was something special about a recent article by George Monbiot that was published in the Guardian on December 5th and I have great pleasure in republishing it here, with George’s permission.

ooOOoo

Shaking It Up

Posted on 7th December 2025

A eureka moment in the pub could help transform our understanding of the ground beneath our feet.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 5th December 2025

It felt like walking up a mountain during a temperature inversion. You struggle through fog so dense you can scarcely see where you’re going. Suddenly, you break through the top of the cloud, and the world is laid out before you. It was that rare and remarkable thing: a eureka moment.
For the past three years, I’d been struggling with a big and frustrating problem. In researching my book Regenesis, I’d been working closely with Iain Tolhurst (Tolly), a pioneering farmer who had pulled off something extraordinary. Almost everywhere, high-yield farming means major environmental harm, due to the amount of fertiliser, pesticides and (sometimes) irrigation water and deep ploughing required. Most farms with apparently small environmental impacts produce low yields. This, in reality, means high impacts, as more land is needed to produce a given amount of food. But Tolly has found the holy grail of agriculture: high and rising yields with minimal environmental harm.

He uses no fertiliser, no animal manure and no pesticides. His techniques, the result of decades of experiment and observation, appear to enrich the crucial relationships between crops and microbes in the soil, through which soil nutrients must pass. It seems that Tolly has, in effect, “trained” his soil bacteria to release nutrients when his crops require them (a process called mineralisation), and lock them up when his crops aren’t growing (immobilisation), ensuring they don’t leach from the soil.

So why the frustration? Well, Tolly has inspired many other growers to attempt the same techniques. Some have succeeded, with excellent results. Others have not. And no one can work out why. It’s likely to have something to do with soil properties. But what?

Not for the first time, I had stumbled into a knowledge gap so wide that humanity could fall through it. Soil is a fantastically complex biological structure, like a coral reef, built and sustained by the creatures that inhabit it. It supplies 99% of our calories. Yet we know less about it than any other identified ecosystem. It’s almost a black box.

Many brilliant scientists have devoted their lives to its study. But there are major barriers. Most soil properties cannot be seen without digging, and if you dig a hole, you damage the structures you’re trying to investigate. As a result, studying even basic properties is cumbersome, time-consuming and either very expensive or simply impossible at scale. To measure the volume of soil in a field, for example, you need to take hundreds of core samples. But as soil depths can vary greatly from one metre to the next, your figure relies on extrapolation. This makes it very hard to tell whether you’re losing soil or gaining it. Measuring bulk density (the amount of soil in a given volume, which shows how compacted it might be), or connected porosity (the tiny catacombs created by lifeforms, a crucial measure of soil health), or soil carbon – at scale – is even harder.

So farmers must guess. Partly because they cannot see exactly what the soil needs, many of their inputs – fertilisers, irrigation, deep ploughing – are wasted. Roughly two-thirds of the nitrogen fertiliser they apply, and between 50% and 80% of their phosphorus, is lost. These lost minerals cause algal blooms in rivers, dead zones at sea, costs for water users and global heating. Huge amounts of irrigation water are also wasted. Farmers sometimes “subsoil” their fields – ploughing that is deep and damaging – because they suspect compaction. The suspicion is often wrong.

Our lack of knowledge also inhibits the development of a new agriculture, which may, as Tolly has done, allow farmers to replace chemical augmentation with biological enhancement.

So when I came to write the book, I made a statement so vague that it reads like an admission of defeat: we needed to spend heavily on “an advanced science of the soil”, and use it to deliver a “greener revolution”. While we know almost nothing about the surface of our own planet, billions are spent on the Mars Rover programme, exploring the barren regolith there. What we needed, I argued, is an Earth Rover programme, mapping the world’s agricultural soils at much finer resolution.

I might as well have written “something must be done!” The necessary technologies simply did not exist. I sank into a stygian gloom.

At the same time, Tarje Nissen-Meyer, then a professor of geophysics at the University of Oxford, was grappling with a different challenge. Seismology is the study of waves passing through a solid medium. Thanks to billions from the oil and gas industry, it has become highly sophisticated. Tarje wanted to use this powerful tool for the opposite purpose – ecological improvement. Already, with colleagues, he had deployed seismology to study elephant behaviour in Kenya. Not only was it highly effective, but his team also discovered it could identify animal species walking through the savannah by their signature footfall.

By luck we were both attached, in different ways, to Wolfson College, Oxford, where we met in February 2022. I saw immediately that he was a thoughtful man – a visionary. I suggested a pint in The Magdalen Arms.

I explained my problem, and we talked about the limits of existing technologies. Was seismology being used to study soil, I asked. He’d never heard of it. “I guess it’s not a suitable technology then?” No, he told me, “soil should be a good medium for seismology. In fact, we need to filter out the soil noise when we look at the rocks.” “So if it’s noise, it could be signal?” “Definitely.”

We stared at each other. Time seemed to stall. Could this really be true?

Over the next three days, Tarje conducted a literature search. Nothing came up. I wrote to Prof Simon Jeffery, an eminent soil scientist at Harper Adams University, whose advice I’d found invaluable when researching the book. I set up a Zoom call. He would surely explain that we were barking up the wrong tree.

Simon is usually a reserved man. But when he had finished questioning Tarje, he became quite animated. “All my life I’ve wanted to ‘see’ into the soil,” he said. “Maybe now we can.” I was introduced to a brilliant operations specialist, Katie Bradford, who helped us build an organisation. We set up a non-profit called the Earth Rover Program, to develop what we call “soilsmology”; to build open-source hardware and software cheap enough to be of use to farmers everywhere; and to create, with farmers, a global, self-improving database. This, we hope, might one day incorporate every soil ecosystem: a kind of Human Genome Project for the soil.

We later found that some scientists had in fact sought to apply seismology to soil, but it had not been developed into a programme, partly because the approaches used were not easily scalable.

My role was mostly fixer, finding money and other help. We received $4m (£3m) in start-up money from the Bezos Earth Fund. This may cause some discomfort, but our experience has been entirely positive: the fund has helped us do exactly what we want. We also got a lot of pro-bono help from the law firm Hogan Lovells.

Tarje, now at the University of Exeter, and Simon began assembling their teams. They would need to develop an ultra-high-frequency variant of seismology. A big obstacle was cost. In 2022, suitable sensors cost $10,000 (£7,500) apiece. They managed to repurpose other kit: Tarje found that a geophone developed by a Slovakian experimental music outfitworked just as well, and cost only $100. Now one of our scientists, Jiayao Meng, is developing a sensor for about $10. In time, we should be able to use the accelerometers in mobile phones, reducing the cost to zero. As for generating seismic waves, we get all the signal we need by hitting a small metal plate with a welder’s hammer.

On its first deployment, our team measured the volume of a peat bog that had been studied by scientists for 50 years. After 45 minutes in the field, they produced a preliminary estimate suggesting that previous measurements were out by 20%. Instead of extrapolating the peat depth from point samples, they could see the wavy line where the peat met the subsoil. The implications for estimating carbon stocks are enormous.

We’ve also been able to measure bulk density at a very fine scale; to track soil moisture (as part of a wider team); to start building the AI and machine learning tools we need; and to see the varying impacts of different agricultural crops and treatments. Next we’ll work on measuring connected porosity, soil texture and soil carbon; scaling up to the hectare level and beyond; and on testing the use of phones as seismometers. We now have further funding, from the UBS Optimus Foundation, hubs on three continents and a big international team.

Eventually, we hope, any farmer anywhere, rich or poor, will be able to get an almost instant readout from their soil. As more people use the tools, building the global database, we hope these readouts will translate into immediate useful advice. The tools should also revolutionise soil protection: the EU has issued a soil-monitoring law, but how can it be implemented? Farmers are paid for their contributions “to improve soil health and soil resilience”, but what this means in practice is ticking a box on a subsidy form: there’s no sensible way of checking.

We’re not replacing the great work of other soil scientists but, developing our methods alongside theirs, we believe we can fill part of the massive knowledge gap. As one of the farmers we’re working with, Roddy Hall, remarks, the Earth Rover Program could “take the guesswork out of farming”. One day it might help everyone arrive at that happy point: high yields with low impacts. Seismology promises to shake things up.

http://www.monbiot.com

ooOOoo

George Monbiot puts his finger precisely on the point of his article: “While we know almost nothing about the surface of our own planet, billions are spent on the Mars Rover programme.“

A worldwide myth.

An incredible fact, as in the truth, that almost nobody will accept.

Until the 22nd November, 2025, that is last Saturday, I believed this lie. A lie that spoke of the dangers, the hazards, the imminent end of the world as I believed it; as in Climate Change!

Very few of you will change your minds, of that I’m sure.

Nonetheless, I am going to republish a long article that was sent to me by my buddy, Dan Gomez.

ooOOoo

Latest Science Further Exposes Lies About Rising Seas

By Vijay Jayaraj

It’s all too predictable: A jet-setting celebrity or politician wades ceremoniously into hip-deep surf for a carefully choreographed photo op, while proclaiming that human-driven sea-level rise will soon swallow an island nation. Of course, the water is deeper than the video’s pseudoscience, which is as shallow as the theatrics.

The scientific truth is simple: Sea levels are rising, but the rate of rise has not accelerated. A new peer-reviewed study confirms what many other studies have already shown – that the steady rise of oceans is a centuries-long process, not a runaway crisis triggered by modern emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).

For the past 12,000 years, during our current warm epoch known as the Holocene, sea levels have risen and fallen dramatically. For instance, during the 600-year Little Ice Age, which ended in the mid-19th century, sea levels dropped quite significantly.

The natural warming that began in the late 1600s got to a point around 1800 where loss of glacial ice in the summer began to exceed winter accumulation and glaciers began to shrink and seas to rise. By 1850, full-on glacial retreat was underway.

Thus, the current period of gradual sea-level increase began between 1800-1860, preceding any significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions by many decades. The U.S. Department of Energy’s 2025 critical review on carbon dioxide and climate change confirms this historical perspective.

“There is no good, sufficient or convincing evidence that global sea level rise is accelerating –there is only hypothesis and speculation. Computation is not evidence and unless the results can be practically viewed and measured in the physical world, such results must not be presented as such,” notes Kip Hansen, researcher and former U.S. Coast Guard captain.

New Study Confirms No Crisis

While activists speak of “global sea-level rise,” the ocean’s surface does not behave like water in a bathtub. Regional currents, land movements, and local hydrology all influence relative sea level. This is why local tide gauge data is important. As Hansen warns, “Only actually measured, validated raw data can be trusted. … You have to understand exactly what’s been measured and how.”

In addition, local tide-gauge data cannot be extrapolated to represent global sea level. This is because the geographic coverage of suitable locations for gauges is often poor, with the majority concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere. Latin America and Africa are severely under-represented in the global dataset.  Hansen says, “The global tide gauge record is quantitatively problematic, but individual records can be shown as qualitative evidence for a lack of sea-level rise acceleration.”

A new 2025 study provides confirmation. Published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, the study systematically dismantles the narrative of accelerating sea-level rise. It analyzed empirically derived long-term rates from datasets of sufficient length – at least 60 years – and incorporated long-term tide signals from suitable locations.

The startling conclusion: Approximately 95% of monitoring locations show no statistically significant acceleration of sea-level rise. It was found that the steady rate of sea-level rise – averaging around 1 to 2 millimeters per year globally – mirrors patterns observed over the past 150 years.

The study suggests that projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which often predicts rates as high as 3 to 4 millimeters per year by 2100, overestimate the annual rise by approximately 2 millimeters.

This discrepancy is not trivial. It translates into billions of dollars in misguided infrastructure investments and adaptation policies, which assume a far worse scenario than what the data support. Because we now know that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise measured locally.

Rather than pursuing economically destructive initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of questionable projections and erroneous climate science, money and time should be invested in supporting coastal communities with accurate data for practical planning to adapt to local sea level rise.

Successful adaptation strategies have existed for centuries in regions prone to flooding and sea-level variations. The Netherlands is an excellent example of how engineering solutions can protect coastal populations even living below sea level.

Rising seas are real but not a crisis. What we have is a manageable, predictable phenomenon to which societies have adapted for centuries. To inflate it into an existential threat is to mislead, misallocate, and ultimately harm the communities that policymakers claim to protect.

This commentary was first published by PJ Media on September 10, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

ooOOoo

I shall be returning to this important topic soon. Probably by republishing that 2025 Study referred to in the above article.

I hope that you read this post.

Thank you, Dan.

The Truth about Gods, part two

The concluding part of this essay by Patrice Ayme.

ooOOoo

Endowing aspects of the universe with spirituality, a mind of their own, is stupid in this day and age, only if one forgets there are natural laws underlying them. But if one wants to feel less alone and more purposeful, it is pretty smart.    

Patrice Ayme

Here is the inventor of monotheism: Nefertiti. Once a fanatic of Aten, the sun god, she turned cautious, once Pharaoh on her own, backpedalled and re-authorized Egyptian polytheism. (The sun-God, Sol Invictis, was revived by Roman emperor Dioclesian 17 centuries later, in his refounding of Romanitas and the empire. His ultra young successor and contemporary, emperor Constantine, used the revived monotheism to impose his invention of Catholicism. Funny how small the conceptual world is.)

***

The preceding part (see Part One yesterday} contains many iconoclastic statements which made the Articial Intelligence (AI) I consulted with try to correct me with what were conventional, but extremely erroneous, ill-informed data points. AI also use the deranged upside down meta-argument that it is well-known that Christianism is not like that, so I have got to be wrong. Well, no, I was raised as a Catholic child in two different Muslim countries, and also in a Pagan one; the Muslim faiths I knew as child were as different from Suny/Shiah faiths as Christianism is, overall, from Islamism. In other words, I know the music of monotheism. So here are:

***

TECHNICAL NOTES: 

[1] To speak in philosophical linguo, we capture two civilizational “ontologies” (logic of existence):

  1. Polytheistic-personal: relational, distributed, ecological.
  2. Monotheistic-fascistic: hierarchical, authoritarian, abstracted.

[2] Paganus, in a religious sense, appears first in the Christian author Tertullian, around 202 CE, to evoke paganus in Roman military jargon for ‘civilian, incompetent soldier‘ by opposition to the competent soldiers (milites) of Christ that Tertullian was calling for.

[3] ‘FAIR OF FACE, Joyous with the Double Plume, Mistress of Happiness, Endowed with Favour, at hearing whose voice one rejoices, Lady of Grace, Great of Love, whose disposition cheers the Lord of the Two Lands.‘

With these felicitous epithets, inscribed in stone more than 3,300 years ago, on the monumental stelae marking the boundaries of the great new city at Tell el Amarna on the Nile in central Egypt, the Pharaoh Akhenaten extolled his Great Royal Wife, the chief queen, the beautiful Nefertiti.

Nefertiti (‘the beautiful one has come‘) co-ruled Egypt with her older (and apparently famously ugly, deformed by disease) husband. Egypt was at its wealthiest. She was considered to be a DIVINITY. All her life is far from known, and revealed one fragment of DNA or old text at a time. She ruled as sole Pharaoh after her husband’s death, and seems to have offered to marry the Hittite Prince (as revealed by a recently found fragment: ”I do not wish to marry one of my subjects. I am afraid…” she confessed in a letter to the amazed Hittite emperor.). She apparently decided to re-allow the worship of the many Egyptian gods, and her adoptive son and successor Tutankhaten switched his name to Tutankhamen). Both her and Tutankhamen died, and they were replaced by a senior top general of Akhenatten who both relieved the dynasty from too much inbreeding (hence the deformed Akhenaten) and too much centralism focused on the sun-disk (‘Aten’)  

[4] Those who do not know history have a small and ridiculous view of FASCISM. Pathetically they refer to simpletons, such as Hitler and Mussolini, to go philosophical on the subject.. Google’s Gemini tried to pontificate that ‘labeling the structure of monotheism (especially its early forms) as ‘fascistic’ is anachronistic and highly inflammatory. Fascism is a specific 20th-century political ideology. While the author means authoritarian and hierarchical, using ‘fascistic’ distracts from the historical and philosophical points by introducing modern political baggage. It would be clearer and less polemical to stick to ‘Hierarchical’ or ‘Authoritarian-Centralized.‘

I disagree virulently with this cognitive shortsightedness of poorly programmed AI. The Romans were perfectly aware of the meaning that the faces symbolized (they got them from the Etruscans). So were the founders of the French and American republics aware of the importance of fascism and the crucial capabilities it provided, the powerful republics which, in the end, succeeded the Roman Republic (which died slowly under the emperors until it couldn’t get up); those two republics gave the basic mentality now ruling the planet.

Fascism is actually an instinct. Its malevolent and dumb confiscation by ignorant  morons such as Hitler and Mussolini ended pathetically under the blows of regimes (the democracies on one side, the fascist USSR on the other) which were capable of gathering enough, and much more, and higher quality fascism of their own to smother under a carpet of bombs the cretinism of the genocidal tyrants. It is actually comical, when reading old battles stories, to see the aghast Nazis out-Nazified by their Soviet opponents (discipline on the Soviet side was a lethal affair at all and any moment.) Or then to see SS commanders outraged by the ferocity of their US opponents. At Bir Hakeim, a tiny French army, 3,000 strong, buried in the sands, blocked the entire Afrika Korps and the Italian army, for weeks, under a deluge of bombs and shells, killing the one and only chance the Nazis had to conquer the Middle East. Hitler ordered the survivors executed, Rommel, who knew he was finished, disobeyed him.   

***

Early Christianism was highly genocidal. The Nazi obsession with the Jews was inherited from Nero (who, unsatisfied with just crucifying Christians (64 CE), launched the annihilation wars against Israel) and then the Christians themselves. There were hundreds of thousands of Samaritans, a type of Jew, with their own capital and temple (above Haifa). Warming up, after centuries of rage against civilization, the Christians under emperor Justinian, in the Sixth Century, nearly annihilated the Samaritans; a genocide by any definition.

Later, by their own count, at a time when Europe and the greater Mediterranean counted around 50 million inhabitants, the Christians, over centuries, killed no less than 5 million Cathars from Spain to Anatolia. Cathars, the pure ones in Greek (a name given to them by their genociders), were a type of Christian). In France alone, in a period of twenty years up to a million were killed, (not all Cathars, but that accentuates the homicidal character). As a commander famously said: ”Tuez les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens” (Kill them all, God will recognize his own). The anti-Cathars genocide drive in France, an aptly named ‘crusade‘,  something about the cross, lasted more than a century (and boosted the power of the Inquisition and the Dominicans). The extinction of Catharism was so great that we have only a couple of texts left. 

Want to know about Christianism? Just look at the torture and execution device they brandish, the cross. Christianism literally gave torture and execution a bad name, and it’s all the most cynical hypocrisy hard at work. 

And so on. To abstract it in an impactful way, one could say that much of Christianism instigated Nazism. That’s one of the dirty little secrets of history, and rather ironical as the dumb Hitler was anti-Christian, and still acted like one, unbeknownst to himself, his public, and his critiques; those in doubt can consult the descriptions of the Crusades by the Franks themselves, when roasting children was found to relieve hunger.

Chroniclers like Radulph of Caen (a Norman historian writing around 1118) described it vividly: “In Ma’arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled.” Other sources, such as Joinville, Fulcher of Chartres and Albert of Aachen, corroborate the desperation and brutality, though they express varying degrees of horror or justification.   These acts were not systematic policy but extreme responses to the hunger and chaos of war, and they were preserved in Frankish narratives as part of the Crusade’s grim legacy. (There were also cases of cannibalism in WW2).

Christianism, when not actively genocidal, certainly instigated a mood, a mentality, of genocide; read Roman emperor Theodosius I about heresy. Here is the end of Theodosius’ famous quote: ‘According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We order the followers of this law to embrace the name of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, we judge them to be demented and ever more insane (dementes vesanosque iudicantes), we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the PUNISHMENT OF OUR AUTHORITY which in accordance with the will of Heaven WE SHALL DECIDE TO INFLICT.‘

The ‘Men In Black‘ of the Fourth Century destroyed books, libraries and intellectuals, ensuring the smothering of civilization, as intended (destruction of the Serapeum in Alexandria, the world’s largest library) around 391 CE. Contemporary writers like Eunapius and Libanius lamented the ‘rage for destruction’ of the Men In Black. Some non-Christian texts were preserved in monasteries, true, but the point is that Christianism made possible the destruction of non-Yahweh knowledge. This is the problem king David himself already had, the fascism, the power obsessed little mind of Yahweh. Monasteries were often built with a covert anti-Christian mentality, things were complicated. When queen Bathilde outlawed slavery (657 CE), her closest allies were bishops, yet she had to execute other, slave-holding bishops. She also founded and funded four monasteries. Soon the Frankish government passed a law enforcing secular teaching by religious establishments.

The uniforms of the Men In Black were copied later by the Dominicans (‘Black Friars’) who led the genocide of the Cathars, in co-operation with the Inquisition, also dressed in black, and then the SS. Luther. Saint Louis expressed explicitly that nothing would bring them more joy than Jews suffering to death. Saint Louis was more descriptive, evoking a knife planted in the belly of the unbeliever and great pleasure. In Joinville’s Life of Saint Louis (c. 1309), Louis recounts a story of a knight who, during a debate with Jews, stabbed one in the belly with a dagger, saying it was better to “kill him like that” than argue theology.  Louis presented this approvingly as zeal for the faith, and wished he could partake. Although he warned, he wouldn’t do it, that would be illegal. With a faith like that Louis IX could only be canonized in 1297 CE. And, following Saint Louis’ hint, the Nazis removed his legal objection by changing the law in 1933, when they got to power.

Luther gave multiple and extensive ‘sincere advices‘ on how to proceed with the genocide of the Jews in his book: ”The Jews and their Lies”. Here is a sample: “If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over, with the words, ‘I baptize thee in the name of Abraham.” 

But Musk’s AI, ‘Grok’ informed me that its basic axiom was that Christianism was never genocidal, but instead ‘suppressive‘. Then it thought hard for ‘nine seconds‘ to try to prove to me, with biased context, that I had exaggerated.

I had not.  

***.  

The entire church was into assassination madness, glorifying in its own cruelty; the chief assassin of Hypatia, a sort of Charlie Manson to the power 1000, was made into a saint: Saint Cyril. Cyril’s minions grabbed Hypatia who had just finished giving a lecture, dragged her in the streets, and stripped her clothing, and then stripped her of her own skin, flaying her with oysters shells, causing her demise. She was the top intellectual of the age. Hypatia met her torturous end in 415 CE. Cyril was made into a saint 29 years later, in 444 CE! With saints like that, who needs Hitler?

Not to say Catholicism was useless; the jealous and genocidal, yet loving and all-knowing Yahweh was always a good excuse to massacre savages and extend civilization on the cheap. The Teutonic Knights, finding the Yahweh fanatics known as Muslims too hard a nut to crack, regrouped in Eastern Germany and launched a very hard fought crusade against the Prussian Natives, who were Pagans. After mass atrocities on both sides, the Teutons won.

The Franks embraced the capabilities of the cross, fully. Having converted to Catholicism, they were in a good position to subdue other Germans, who were Arians (and that they did, submitting Goths and Burgonds, Ostrogoths and Lombards). Three centuries later, Charlemagne used Christianism as an instrument to kill Saxons on an industrial scale, in the name of God, to finally subdue them, after Saxons had terminally aggravated Romanitas for 800 years, driving Augustus crazy. 

Charlemagne, in daily life, showing how relative Christianism was, and its true Jewish origins, used the nickname ‘David’ for king David, the monarch who refused to obey Yahweh, who had ordered David to genocidize a people (petty, jealous God Yahweh then tortured David’s son to death). 

Charlemagne lived the life of a hardened Pagan, with a de-facto harem, etc. More viciously, Charlemagne passed laws pushing for secular, and thus anti-Christian education. Following in these respects a well-established Frankish custom. Charlemagne knew Christianism was a weapon, and he was careful to use it only on the Saxons; internally, there was maximum tolerance: Christians could become Jews, if they so wished.

PA

ooOOoo

I found the full essay quite remarkable. Jean has heard me rattle on about it numerous times since I first read the essay on November 2nd. I sincerely hope you will read it soon.

Finally, let me reproduce what I wrote in a response to Patrice’s post:

Patrice, in your long and fascinating article, above, you have educated me in so many ways. My mother was an atheist and I was brought up in likewise fashion. But you have gone so much further in your teachings.

Your article needs a further reading. But I am going to share it with my readers on LfD so many more can appreciate what you have written. Plus, I am going to republish it over two days.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!


The Truth about Gods, part one.

A brilliant essay by Patrice Ayme.

Patrice writes amazing posts, some of which are beyond me. But this one, The Personification Of The World, PAGANISM, Gives Us Friends Everywhere, is incredible.

My own position is that my mother and father were atheists and I was brought up as one. Apart from a slip-up when I was married to my third wife, a Catholic, and she left me and I thought that by joining the Catholic church I might win her back. (My subconcious fear of rejection.)

My subconscious fear of rejection was not revealed to me until the 50th anniversary of my father’s death in 2006 when I saw a local psychotherapist. Then I met Jean in December, 2007 and she was the first woman I truly loved!

Back to the essay; it is a long essay and I am going to publish the first half today and the second half tomorrow. (And I have made some tiny changes.)

ooOOoo

The Personification Of The World, PAGANISM, Gives Us Friends Everywhere

Abstract: Personification of the world (polytheism/paganism) is more pragmatic, psychologically rewarding, and ecologically sound than the hierarchical, abstracted structure of monotheism, which the author labels “fascistic.” [4]

***

Switching to a single fascist God, Ex Pluribus Unum, a single moral order replacing the myriad spirits of the world, was presented as a great progress: now everybody could, should, line up below the emperor, God’s representative on Earth, and obey the monarch and his or her gang. The resulting organization was called civilization. Submitting to God was the only way Rome could survive, because it provided a shrinking army and tax base with more authority than it deserved.

However peasants had to predict the world and it was more judicious to personalize aspects of it. The resulting logico-emotional relationship had another advantage: the supportive presence of a proximal Gods… All over!.[1]

*** 

personification

/pəˌsɒnɪfɪˈkeɪʃn/ noun

1.the attribution of a personal nature or human characteristics to something non-human, or the representation of an abstract quality in human form.

***

Before Christianism, Gods were everywhere. When the Christians took over, they imposed their all powerful, all knowing Jewish God. Some present the Jewish God as a great invention, symbolizing some sort of progress of rationality that nobody had imagined before. 

However, the single God concept was not that new. Even Americans had it in North America, as the chief of God, the Aztecs, had a similar concept, and even Zeus was a kind of chief God. Zoroastrianism had Ahura Mazda, who did not control Angra Manyu, but still was somewhat more powerful. The Hindus had Vishnu and his many avatars.

Eighteen centuries before those great converters to Christianism, Constantine, Constantius II, and Theodosius I, there was an attempt to forcefully convert the Egyptians to a single God. Pharaoh Akhenaten’s monotheistic experiment (worship of Aten) caused turmoil and was erased by his immediate successors.

According to the latest research it seems likely that the famous Nefertiti became a Pharaoh on her own, after the death of her husband, and retreated from monotheism by re-establishing Egyptian polytheism [3]. In the fullness of time, the infernal couple got struck by what the Romans, 15 centuries later, would call damnatio memoriae. Their very names and faith were erased from hundreds of monuments

Shortly after the Aten episode, there was another confrontation between polytheism and monotheism. The colonizers of Gaza were apparently Greek, of Aegean origin, and, as such, over more than a millennium of conflict with the Jewish states in the hills, Greek Gods confronted Yahweh. The Greeks obviously did not see Yahweh as a major conceptual advance, as they did not adopt Him (until Constantine imposed Him, 15 centuries later).

While the area experienced enormous turmoil, including the permanent eclipse of Troy after the war with Greece (see Homer), and later its replacement by Phrygia, then followed by the Bronze Age collapse, then the rise of Tyre, and the Assyrian conquest, the Greeks survived everything, and their civilization kept sprawling (the early Christian writings were in Greek).

Ultimately, the lack of ideological bending, the obsession with pigs and other silliness, helped to bring devastating Judeo-Roman wars. By comparison, the much larger Gaul bent like a reed when confronted with the Greco-Romans, absorbing the good stuff. Mercury, the God of trade, preceded Roman merchants. Gaul didn’t take religion too seriously, and went on with civilizational progress.

The lack of elasticity of the single God religion of the Jews brought their quasi-eradication by Rome; Judaism was tolerated, but Jewish nationalism got outlawed. By comparison, the Greeks played the long game, and within a generation or so of Roman conquest, they had spiritually conquered their conqueror. Christianism was actually an adaptation of Judaism to make Yahweh conquer the heart and soul of fascist Rome.

***

To have Gods everywhere? Why not? Is not the Judeo-Christian God everywhere too? Doesn’t it speak through fountains, and the immensity of the desert, and the moon, and the stars, too?

***

Yahweh, the Jewish God Catholic Romans called “Deus” was deemed to be also the ultimate love object. Yahweh had promised land to the Jews, Deus promised eternal life of the nicest sort – To all those who bought the program. 

Christians were city dwellers and their power over the countryside and barbarians came from those who had imposed Christianism, the imperial powers that be (at the time, more than 90% of the people worked in agriculture). Already as a teenager, Constantine, a sort of superman born from imperial purple, terrified the court which was supposed to hold him hostage. Such a brute and excellent general could only get inspired by Yahweh’s dedication to power.

The country dwellers, the villagers, disagreed that they needed to submit to a God organized, celebrated and imposed by the all-powerful government (god-vernment?). In classical Latin paganus meant ‘villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant’. In late imperial Latin it came to mean non-Judeo-Christian (and later non-Judeo-Christo-Islamist) [2].

Christianism found it very difficult to penetrate the countryside, where the food was produced. It never quite succeeded (Even in Muslim Albania, Pagan rituals survived until the 20th century; much of the cult of saints is barely disguised Paganism).

Peasants knew that power was distributed throughout nature, and they had to understand those powers, thus love them – That enabled them to predict phenomena.

Peasants could ponder the mood of a river, and even predict it; flooding was more of a possibility in some circumstances, and then it was no time to indulge in activities next to the river. Peasants had to guess the weather, and the earlier, the better. Peasants had to know which part of the astronomical cycle they were in, to be able to plant crops accordingly; that was not always clear just looking outside, but the stars would tell and could be trusted to tell the truth.

We can be friends to human beings, and sometimes it’s great, but sometimes we feel betrayed and abandoned. But a mountain or a sea? They will always be there, they are not running away, they are never deliberately indifferent, and generally exhibit predictable moods. It is more pragmatic and rewarding to love them more rather than an abstract Dog in Heavens. Call them Gods if you want.

ooOOoo

Part two will be published tomorrow.

I am publishing the notes, on both days, so you can look them up now rather than waiting another day.

TECHNICAL NOTES: 

[1] To speak in philosophical linguo, we capture two civilizational ‘ontologies’ (logic of existence):

  1. Polytheistic-personal: relational, distributed, ecological.
  2. Monotheistic-fascistic: hierarchical, authoritarian, abstracted.

[2] Paganus, in a religious sense, appears first in the Christian author Tertullian, around 202 CE, to evoke paganus in Roman military jargon for ‘civilian, incompetent soldier‘ by opposition to the competent soldiers (milites) of Christ that Tertullian was calling for.

[3] ‘FAIR OF FACE, Joyous with the Double Plume, Mistress of Happiness, Endowed with Favour, at hearing whose voice one rejoices, Lady of Grace, Great of Love, whose disposition cheers the Lord of the Two Lands.‘

With these felicitous epithets, inscribed in stone more than 3,300 years ago on the monumental stelae marking the boundaries of the great new city at Tell el Amarna on the Nile in central Egypt, the Pharaoh Akhenaten extolled his Great Royal Wife, the chief queen, the beautiful Nefertiti.

Nefertiti (‘the beautiful one has come‘) co-ruled with her older (and apparently famously ugly, deformed by disease) husband, Egypt. Egypt was at its wealthiest. She was considered to be a DIVINITY. All her life is far from known, and revealed one fragment of DNA or old text at a time. She ruled as sole Pharaoh after her husband’s death, and seems to have offered to marry the Hittite Prince (as revealed by a recently found fragment: ”I do not wish to marry one of my subjects. I am afraid…” she confessed in a letter to the amazed Hittite emperor). She apparently decided to re-allow the worship of the many Egyptian gods and her adoptive son and successor Tutankhaten switched his name to Tutankhamen. Both her and Tutankhamen died, and they were replaced by a senior top general of Akhenatten who both relieved the dynasty from too much inbreeding (hence the deformed Akhenaten) and too much centralism focused on the sun-disk (‘Aten’).  

[4] Those who do not know history have a small and ridiculous view of FASCISM. Pathetically they refer to simpletons, such as Hitler and Mussolini, to go philosophical on the subject. Google’s Gemini tried to pontificate that ‘labeling the structure of monotheism (especially its early forms) as ‘fascistic’ is anachronistic and highly inflammatory. Fascism is a specific 20th-century political ideology. While the author means authoritarian and hierarchical, using ‘fascistic’ distracts from the historical and philosophical points by introducing modern political baggage. It would be clearer and less polemical to stick to ‘Hierarchical’ or ‘Authoritarian-Centralized’.