So how far is too far? Is there ever too far when it comes to saving the environment? Are any of us really radical enough, considering the planet is falling apart?
A few nights ago, I was sleeping on the shore of Lake Fernen, which is right across the street from Lake Coeur d'Alene...if you've never seen Coeur d'Alene, which apparently means "Heart of the Awl," in French, well, I just can't describe the beauty to you; it is yet another of those Western places that just makes you cry and believe in God. Or at least, this is my reaction, some folks might become more dedicated atheists when viewing places like Coeur d'Alene; I don't know.
Anyway, where I slept had apparently once been the bed of a porcupine; when I got up in the morning, my jacket and sleeping bag where covered with porcupine quills. I heard coyotes yipping in the middle of the night; I watched a beaver swim right by me; a great blue heron woke me in the morning with his or her caws. It was, in short, magnificent, and in my option, the only way for the world to be; and not just National Parks, but all the world, as far as I'm concerned. It was funny; the beaver and I shared a moment, by which I mean I sensed something or someone watching me, so I turned in that direction and then saw a beaver dive under the water and swim away. I guess I tapped into the beaver's spirit or something; it was a beautiful moment.
So now, back in Portland, trying to sleep in a tent in a backyard with planes going overhead, street lights making everything lit up day and night, construction going noisily on everywhere, traffic, dogs, screaming babies, all the trappings of "civilization" making me want to shoot myself...I wonder, "is there such a thing as too radical when it comes to the environment?"
I've started researching tubal litigation, that is, getting my tubes tied. You know those bumper stickers you see on bikes that say "one less SUV" or "one less car?" Well my new motto is becoming "one less white brat." The last thing we need in this messed up world is more white babies (babies in general really,) but white babies in particular, for in a world where the ozone is disappearing, and skin cancer is on the rise, white skin is a foolish thing to breed into a population. I don't see my pursuit of a midwifery degree in any way hypocritical; just because for me it seems foolish to become a breeder, doesn't mean everyone else has to feel the same way; although I would like to set some type of example, which is why it makes so much sense to me not to breed as a future midwife. Also, babies of midwives have moms that are constantly running away from home for days at a time to nourish other people's families, so kids of midwives often grow up a little resentful. Some midwives stop practicing when they see what their career is doing to their family. As a person interested in practicing illegal midwifery in Upstate New York, it doesn't make sense to have babies who might see their mommy go to jail or prison. Babies are just seeming more and more not something I have time for; besides, you can plant a gazillion trees to offset the carbon of the lifetime of the baby you are going to have, or you can just not have that baby and still plant a gazillion trees...now that option makes sense to me.
I've also started doing other little "radical" things I wasn't doing before in regards to the environment; bucket-washing my clothes, for example, bathing once a week or less, and pissing outside as much as possible. I might start composting my shit as well; it seems the house I'm "living" at has some interest in getting "humanure" going as a house project.
So am I becoming too radical? Some people would say I've already crossed that line, but I don't think so. At this point, with porcupine, beaver, wolves, polar bear, feral humans, large birds of prey....everything wild in fact, becoming very rare, we must cross that invisible line from liberal tree-hugger to radical environmentalist and not be frightened to keep going.
Love ya,
Carrot
