Posterous theme by Cory Watilo

11/11/11

Down Through the Years

Our lives were like a coin you toss
We have won, our friends have lost
And now they sleep beneath a cross
Down through the years.

Side by side they fought their way
That we may vote, our children play
And now they sleep until Judgment Day
Down through the years.

Many friends we knew have gone before
And now they’ve reached the distant shore
Their memory lives forever more
Down through the years.

~ Sam Arthur McArthur – Lincoln and Welland Regiment & Princess Louise Dragoon Guards

Dsc00540
Some of the over 50,000 names on The Menin Gate Memorial to the Missing in Ypres, Belgium.

Two Letters Home

These two letters are to my great grandmother, Aggie. The first is from her brother Tom, who was serving with the 3rd Dragoon Guards (Prince of Wales' Own) and the second is from my great grandfather Tom who was serving with 16th Battalion Royal Scots - known as McCrae's Battalion. Both are from the front during WW1 and both men would be dead within a few months of writing them.

Thomas-whitelaw
Saturday 10/4/15

Dear Aggie,

I must thank you for your parcel.  I can tell you it came in very handy and it goes down alright in the cold nights for it is a bit cold out here.   How is Tommy liking his cooks job.   I don’t want you Aggie to send me out any parcels for I know you will be wanting your money for your family.   I know I would be welcome to it but never mind Aggie and I don’t care as long as I can keep good health.   that is the main thing out here and it will be a good job when the warm weather starts again.    how is the weather at home.  sun shining.  I don’t think it would help to cheer us up with a little sunshine.  I wrote to Lizzie about 2 weeks ago but I see I have not got an answer so I can tell you Aggie she will wait a good bit longer before I write to her again.   Not only that but not even speak to her if I don’t get any word from here.   I have never got a letter from Jenny yet but I will get one later on I suppose.  I wonder Aggie if she will send me on that cocoa and coffee I asked from her.  if I don’t get it well I will have to go without that’s all.  Do you still get letters from Jocky and how is he getting on.   I hope he gets back safe and sound.   I suppose he will be wondering how I am getting on.   When you write again let him know how I am doing.   Is Jamie and Willie still sticking on at the coals.   If you see them in your travels give them my regards.   Will you Aggie remember me to my mother and Mrs Noon and Tommy sisters.  Tell them I am still in the land of the living and doing well. I never got your paper that you promised to send to me.  I thought I would have had it before this time.   I still get a letter from my chum Walter Grant and it seems he is sticking it alright but I suppose I will miss a lot of the old faces around the corner.   I suppose they have all joined the Army.   Well Aggie I have no more news at present but hoping this finds you and all the family at home in the best of health and good luck as it leaves me the same roll on when the war is over.  Until we meet again

From

Your loving Brother Tom  xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxx with love to all at home

Private Thomas Whitelaw - killed in action on 02/06/1915. His body was never found. He's name listed on the Menin Gate in Ypres with the other 55,000 missing .

The_noons_web
4/1/1917 - BEF - France

My Dear Aggie and children

I recieved your kind and welcome letters and parcel all right but the cake was brocking up but the bottle was alright it came in very handy.   I got it on Xmas eve and it went down a.one with the two cooks.   I was cooking for the Xmas dinner so we had not a bad time the officers gave us 5 turkeys and I(we) cook them for the boys and also a barrel of French beer so we were not bad off.   We were out for a few days rest.  Just know Dear Aggie I recieved your kind Xmas card   It was a very nice one.   Did you get the one with the child in the basket  I had not enough money to get a good one but will send one some time.  How are you getting along and how did you enjoy your New Year.  Had you and the children a good time.   I was just thinking of you when 12 oclock came.  I was very down hearted but I just made the best of it.  a young chap came up to me and 12-30 and said happy new year tommy and i shook his hand and he had a bottle of scotch in his pocket and he gave me a good drop so I drank to his health and yours and children so I felt a bit happy after that.   We had a great night with the big guns given the Germans theme new year.   Well Aggie I don’t know when I will get my leave.  It might be this month or next but will let you know, how is the weather in Edinburgh.   Was it snowing for we got some of it over here.  It is so very cold at night and rain and snow at any time.   I only hope I am spared to get my leave for I am fed up out here.   I wish it was all over.   They say it won’t be long but it don’t look it out here.   I think it will be a time yet before it over.   Well Aggie how did you get on with your money you know what I mean.   Had you to write Hamilton about it.   Hope you get it alright.   how is Willie doing in his long trousers.   He will be thinking he is a man now.  How much did he get in his Xmas box.   Had he a good time with his pals.   I don’t know who he is.  You might tell him I was asking for his pall.   Dear Aggie you might tell my mother I was asking for her also Nellie and Charlie and also Mr. Smith.   Was he home at new year time.   I have not written to Smith yet for I don’t know what to say.  I will drop him a not in a few days.  was my Brother Joe home at new year time.   Mother said she was going to write to me and let me know, Well Aggie I will now draw to a close as that is all the new at present.    I am very sorry for not writing before this.    we have been very bussy out here.   Give my best love the the children not for getting your self and the new baby.  Kisses to Willie xxx   Tom xxx  Jim xxx Bessie xxx Kate xxx and wee Lizzie xxx and wee Peter xxx and  your wee self from Tom xxxxx to Aggie

With love. Write Soon. xxx

Private Thomas Duncan Noon of the was killed in action on April 8, 1917. He's buried in Roclincourt Valley Cemetery in France. Tom survived the battle of the Somme in 1916 while many of his friends did not, only to be killed in a shell attack shortly before the Battle of Arras.

Morals Without God?

The StoneThe Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.

I was born in Den Bosch, the city after which Hieronymus Bosch named himself. [1] This obviously does not make me an expert on the Dutch painter, but having grown up with his statue on the market square, I have always been fond of his imagery, his symbolism, and how it relates to humanity’s place in the universe. This remains relevant today since Bosch depicts a society under a waning influence of God.

His famous triptych with naked figures frolicking around — “The Garden of Earthly Delights” — seems a tribute to paradisiacal innocence. The tableau is far too happy and relaxed to fit the interpretation of depravity and sin advanced by puritan experts. It represents humanity free from guilt and shame either before the Fall or without any Fall at all. For a primatologist, like myself, the nudity, references to sex and fertility, the plentiful birds and fruits and the moving about in groups are thoroughly familiar and hardly require a religious or moral interpretation. Bosch seems to have depicted humanity in its natural state, while reserving his moralistic outlook for the right-hand panel of the triptych in which he punishes — not the frolickers from the middle panel — but monks, nuns, gluttons, gamblers, warriors, and drunkards.

Garden of Earthly Delights ParkHieronymus Bosch Hieronymus Bosch’s “Garden of Earthly Delights” depicts hundreds of erotic naked figures carrying or eating fruits, but is also full of references to alchemy, the forerunner of chemistry. The figures on the right are embedded in glass tubes typical of a bain-marie, while the two birds supposedly symbolize vapors.

Five centuries later, we remain embroiled in debates about the role of religion in society. As in Bosch’s days, the central theme is morality. Can we envision a world without God? Would this world be good? Don’t think for one moment that the current battle lines between biology and fundamentalist Christianity turn around evidence. One has to be pretty immune to data to doubt evolution, which is why books and documentaries aimed at convincing the skeptics are a waste of effort. They are helpful for those prepared to listen, but fail to reach their target audience. The debate is less about the truth than about how to handle it. For those who believe that morality comes straight from God the creator, acceptance of evolution would open a moral abyss.

Our Vaunted Frontal Lobe

Echoing this view, Reverend Al Sharpton opined in a recent videotaped debate: “If there is no order to the universe, and therefore some being, some force that ordered it, then who determines what is right or wrong? There is nothing immoral if there’s nothing in charge.” Similarly, I have heard people echo Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov, exclaiming that “If there is no God, I am free to rape my neighbor!”

Perhaps it is just me, but I am wary of anyone whose belief system is the only thing standing between them and repulsive behavior. Why not assume that our humanity, including the self-control needed for livable societies, is built into us? Does anyone truly believe that our ancestors lacked social norms before they had religion? Did they never assist others in need, or complain about an unfair deal? Humans must have worried about the functioning of their communities well before the current religions arose, which is only a few thousand years ago. Not that religion is irrelevant — I will get to this — but it is an add-on rather than the wellspring of morality.

Deep down, creationists realize they will never win factual arguments with science. This is why they have construed their own science-like universe, known as Intelligent Design, and eagerly jump on every tidbit of information that seems to go their way. The most recent opportunity arose with the Hauser affair. A Harvard colleague, Marc Hauser, has been accused of eight counts of scientific misconduct, including making up his own data. Since Hauser studied primate behavior and wrote about morality, Christian Web sites were eager to claim that “all that people like Hauser are left with are unsubstantiated propositions that are contradicted by millennia of human experience” (Chuck Colson, Sept. 8, 2010). A major newspaper asked “Would it be such a bad thing if Hausergate resulted in some intellectual humility among the new scientists of morality?” (Eric Felten, Aug. 27, 2010). Even a linguist could not resist this occasion to reaffirm the gap between human and animal by warning against “naive evolutionary presuppositions.”

These are rearguard battles, however. Whether creationists jump on this scientific scandal or linguists and psychologists keep selling human exceptionalism does not really matter. Fraud has occurred in many fields of science, from epidemiology to physics, all of which are still around. In the field of cognition, the march towards continuity between human and animal has been inexorable — one misconduct case won’t make a difference. True, humanity never runs out of claims of what sets it apart, but it is a rare uniqueness claim that holds up for over a decade. This is why we don’t hear anymore that only humans make tools, imitate, think ahead, have culture, are self-aware, or adopt another’s point of view.

If we consider our species without letting ourselves be blinded by the technical advances of the last few millennia, we see a creature of flesh and blood with a brain that, albeit three times larger than a chimpanzee’s, doesn’t contain any new parts. Even our vaunted prefrontal cortex turns out to be of typical size: recent neuron-counting techniques classify the human brain as a linearly scaled-up monkey brain.[2] No one doubts the superiority of our intellect, but we have no basic wants or needs that are not also present in our close relatives. I interact on a daily basis with monkeys and apes, which just like us strive for power, enjoy sex, want security and affection, kill over territory, and value trust and cooperation. Yes, we use cell phones and fly airplanes, but our psychological make-up remains that of a social primate. Even the posturing and deal-making among the alpha males in Washington is nothing out of the ordinary.

The Pleasure of Giving

Charles Darwin was interested in how morality fits the human-animal continuum, proposing in “The Descent of Man”: “Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts … would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed … as in man.”

Unfortunately, modern popularizers have strayed from these insights. Like Robert Wright in “The Moral Animal,” they argue that true moral tendencies cannot exist — not in humans and even less in other animals — since nature is one hundred percent selfish. Morality is just a thin veneer over a cauldron of nasty tendencies. Dubbing this position “Veneer Theory” (similar to Peter Railton’s “moral camouflage”), I have fought it ever since my 1996 book “Good Natured.” Instead of blaming atrocious behavior on our biology (“we’re acting like animals!”), while claiming our noble traits for ourselves, why not view the entire package as a product of evolution? Fortunately, there has been a resurgence of the Darwinian view that morality grew out of the social instincts. Psychologists stress the intuitive way we arrive at moral judgments while activating emotional brain areas, and economists and anthropologists have shown humanity to be far more cooperative, altruistic, and fair than predicted by self-interest models. Similarly, the latest experiments in primatology reveal that our close relatives will do each other favors even if there’s nothing in it for themselves.

ChimpanzeesFrans de Waal Maintaining a peaceful society is one of the tendencies underlying human morality that we share with other primates, such as chimpanzees. After a fight between two adult males, one offers an open hand to his adversary. When the other accepts the invitation, both kiss and embrace.

Chimpanzees and bonobos will voluntarily open a door to offer a companion access to food, even if they lose part of it in the process. And capuchin monkeys are prepared to seek rewards for others, such as when we place two of them side by side, while one of them barters with us with differently colored tokens. One token is “selfish,” and the other “prosocial.” If the bartering monkey selects the selfish token, it receives a small piece of apple for returning it, but its partner gets nothing. The prosocial token, on the other hand, rewards both monkeys. Most monkeys develop an overwhelming preference for the prosocial token, which preference is not due to fear of repercussions, because dominant monkeys (who have least to fear) are the most generous.

Even though altruistic behavior evolved for the advantages it confers, this does not make it selfishly motivated. Future benefits rarely figure in the minds of animals. For example, animals engage in sex without knowing its reproductive consequences, and even humans had to develop the morning-after pill. This is because sexual motivation is unconcerned with the reason why sex exists. The same is true for the altruistic impulse, which is unconcerned with evolutionary consequences. It is this disconnect between evolution and motivation that befuddled the Veneer Theorists, and made them reduce everything to selfishness. The most quoted line of their bleak literature says it all: “Scratch an ‘altruist,’ and watch a ‘hypocrite’ bleed.”[3]

It is not only humans who are capable of genuine altruism; other animals are, too. I see it every day. An old female, Peony, spends her days outdoors with other chimpanzees at the Yerkes Primate Center’s Field Station. On bad days, when her arthritis is flaring up, she has trouble walking and climbing, but other females help her out. For example, Peony is huffing and puffing to get up into the climbing frame in which several apes have gathered for a grooming session. An unrelated younger female moves behind her, placing both hands on her ample behind and pushes her up with quite a bit of effort, until Peony has joined the rest.

We have also seen Peony getting up and slowly move towards the water spigot, which is at quite a distance. Younger females sometimes run ahead of her, take in some water, then return to Peony and give it to her. At first, we had no idea what was going on, since all we saw was one female placing her mouth close to Peony’s, but after a while the pattern became clear: Peony would open her mouth wide, and the younger female would spit a jet of water into it.

calming embraceFrans de Waal A juvenile chimpanzee reacts to a screaming adult male on the right, who has lost a fight, by offering a calming embrace in an apparent expression of empathy.

Such observations fit the emerging field of animal empathy, which deals not only with primates, but also with canines, elephants, even rodents. A typical example is how chimpanzees console distressed parties, hugging and kissing them, which behavior is so predictable that scientists have analyzed thousands of cases. Mammals are sensitive to each other’s emotions, and react to others in need. The whole reason people fill their homes with furry carnivores and not with, say, iguanas and turtles, is because mammals offer something no reptile ever will. They give affection, they want affection, and respond to our emotions the way we do to theirs.

Mammals may derive pleasure from helping others in the same way that humans feel good doing good. Nature often equips life’s essentials — sex, eating, nursing — with built-in gratification. One study found that pleasure centers in the human brain light up when we give to charity. This is of course no reason to call such behavior “selfish” as it would make the word totally meaningless. A selfish individual has no trouble walking away from another in need. Someone is drowning: let him drown. Someone cries: let her cry. These are truly selfish reactions, which are quite different from empathic ones. Yes, we experience a “warm glow,” and perhaps some other animals do as well, but since this glow reaches us via the other, and only via the other, the helping is genuinely other-oriented.

Bottom-Up Morality

A few years ago Sarah Brosnan and I demonstrated that primates will happily perform a task for cucumber slices until they see others getting grapes, which taste so much better. The cucumber-eaters become agitated, throw down their measly veggies and go on strike. A perfectly fine food has become unpalatable as a result of seeing a companion with something better.

We called it inequity aversion, a topic since investigated in other animals, including dogs. A dog will repeatedly perform a trick without rewards, but refuse as soon as another dog gets pieces of sausage for the same trick. Recently, Sarah reported an unexpected twist to the inequity issue, however. While testing pairs of chimps, she found that also the one who gets the better deal occasionally refuses. It is as if they are satisfied only if both get the same. We seem to be getting close to a sense of fairness.

Such findings have implications for human morality. According to most philosophers, we reason ourselves towards a moral position. Even if we do not invoke God, it is still a top-down process of us formulating the principles and then imposing those on human conduct. But would it be realistic to ask people to be considerate of others if we had not already a natural inclination to be so? Would it make sense to appeal to fairness and justice in the absence of powerful reactions to their absence? Imagine the cognitive burden if every decision we took needed to be vetted against handed-down principles. Instead, I am a firm believer in the Humean position that reason is the slave of the passions. We started out with moral sentiments and intuitions, which is also where we find the greatest continuity with other primates. Rather than having developed morality from scratch, we received a huge helping hand from our background as social animals.

At the same time, however, I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a “moral being.” This is because sentiments do not suffice. We strive for a logically coherent system, and have debates about how the death penalty fits arguments for the sanctity of life, or whether an unchosen sexual orientation can be wrong. These debates are uniquely human. We have no evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not affect themselves. The great pioneer of morality research, the Finn Edward Westermarck, explained what makes the moral emotions special: “Moral emotions are disconnected from one’s immediate situation: they deal with good and bad at a more abstract, disinterested level.” This is what sets human morality apart: a move towards universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring and punishment.

Related
More From The Stone

Read previous contributions to this series.

At this point, religion comes in. Think of the narrative support for compassion, such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, or the challenge to fairness, such as the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, with its famous conclusion “The last will be first, and the first will be last.” Add to this an almost Skinnerian fondness of reward and punishment — from the virgins to be met in heaven to the hell fire that awaits sinners — and the exploitation of our desire to be “praiseworthy,” as Adam Smith called it. Humans are so sensitive to public opinion that we only need to see a picture of two eyes glued to the wall to respond with good behavior, which explains the image in some religions of an all-seeing eye to symbolize an omniscient God.

The Atheist Dilemma

Over the past few years, we have gotten used to a strident atheism arguing that God is not great (Christopher Hitchens) or a delusion (Richard Dawkins). The new atheists call themselves “brights,” thus hinting that believers are not so bright. They urge trust in science, and want to root ethics in a naturalistic worldview.

While I do consider religious institutions and their representatives — popes, bishops, mega-preachers, ayatollahs, and rabbis — fair game for criticism, what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in religion? And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch.

Even the staunchest atheist growing up in Western society cannot avoid having absorbed the basic tenets of Christian morality. Our societies are steeped in it: everything we have accomplished over the centuries, even science, developed either hand in hand with or in opposition to religion, but never separately. It is impossible to know what morality would look like without religion. It would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause.

Bosch struggled with the same issue — not with being an atheist, which was not an option — but science’s place in society. The little figures in his paintings with inverted funnels on their heads or the buildings in the form of flasks, distillation bottles, and furnaces reference chemical equipment.[4] Alchemy was gaining ground yet mixed with the occult and full of charlatans and quacks, which Bosch depicted with great humor in front of gullible audiences. Alchemy turned into science when it liberated itself from these influences and developed self-correcting procedures to deal with flawed or fabricated data. But science’s contribution to a moral society, if any, remains a question mark.

Other primates have of course none of these problems, but even they strive for a certain kind of society. For example, female chimpanzees have been seen to drag reluctant males towards each other to make up after a fight, removing weapons from their hands, and high-ranking males regularly act as impartial arbiters to settle disputes in the community. I take these hints of community concern as yet another sign that the building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and that we do not need God to explain how we got where we are today. On the other hand, what would happen if we were able to excise religion from society? I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good. Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own devoted followers, so that it will soon look like any old religion.

Frans de Waal’s essay is the subject of this week’s forum discussion among the humanists and scientists at On the Human, a project of the National Humanities Center.

Also, view an excerpt from a Bloggingheads.tv discussion about this post between Frans de Waal and Robert Wright, author of “The Moral Animal.”

Or watch the entire discussion at Bloggingheads.tv.

NOTES

[1] Also known as s’Hertogenbosch, this is a 12th-century provincial capital in the Catholic south of the Netherlands. Bosch lived from circa 1450 until 1516.

[2] Herculano-Houzel, Suzana (2009). The human brain in numbers: A linearly scaled-up primate brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 3: 1-11.

[3] Ghiselin, Michael (1974). The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[4] Dixon, Laurinda (2003). Bosch. London: Phaidon.

Frans de Waal

Frans B. M. de Waal is a biologist interested in primate behavior. He is C. H. Candler Professor in Psychology, and Director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University, in Atlanta, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences. His latest book is “The Age of Empathy.”

Twenty years of Friends and Friendship

Even though we've changed and we're all finding our own place in the world, we all know that when the tears fall or the smile spreads across our face, we'll come to each other because no matter where this crazy world takes us, nothing will ever change so much to the point where we're not all still friends. ~ Unknown

I've been thinking a lot about my group of friends over the last week or so. I know that if I'm in need of a virtual hug, words of encouragement or a good laugh they're there for me. We've been "the girls" for a long time and even though our lives have taken different paths to different parts of the globe, when we get together it feels like not a single day has passed.

I've also been thinking a lot about how their friendship has enriched not only the greater fabric of my life, but that they affect and impact my every day. There's not a day that goes by that I don't think of them or want to share something with them. I have an amazing partner, who I love and who loves me and I can't imagine life without her but "the girls" are different. 

Right now one of the girls is in trouble. She's struggling and there is little we can do. And for the start of this journey my friend needs to travel on her own.  We are and will be there for her.  We wait (often impatiently) ready to do whatever she needs us to. 

We all were blindsided by what's happened.  It's shaken me, left me spinning and in my mind replaying our decades of friendship.  Was there something we could have done?  When we last saw each other was there something we missed?  I have been going over and over it my head.  I don't know.  I keep looking for clues that aren't there.  Or maybe they are and I'm just not able to see them. I really don't know.

I know that despite what's happening now, my friend and, in fact, all of my friends are strong, amazing women whom I can depend on and never do I worry about them not being there for me.  I'm lucky. I've got six amazing friends and I can only wish the same for everyone. 

If ever there is tomorrow when we're not together.. there is something you must always remember. You are braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think. but the most important thing is, even if we're apart.. I'll always be with you. ~ AA Milne
Unknownname

Next American City » Connecting With Neighbors Online

Interesting look at how neighbours are connecting online with each other and their local governments. It would be interesting to see how the Niagara Region compares.

Connecting With Neighbors Online

While many of the ideas behind “open cities” focus on transforming the relationship between government and citizens, helping citizens to better communicate and collaborate with each other is also an area of increasing interest – one that has less need for fighting government red tape.

Earlier this month, the Pew Internet & American Life Project released a new report with survey data on how people are using the Internet and other communication tools to keep informed about what’s going on in their neighborhood. The report showed that face-to-face encounters with neighbors remain the primary method that people talk with each other about community issues – with 46% percent of Americans reporting they had done so in the last 12 months.

When it comes to online tools such as email, blogs, text messaging and social networking, only about one fifth of Americans (and 27% of internet users) report such activity. At first glance, this figure may seem underwhelming. But when you consider that practically the same number of Americans (21%) use the telephone to talk about community issues with their neighbors, the numbers don’t seem so bad.

To dispel stereotypes about Internet-addicted shut-ins, the report also points out that frequent Internet use is not correlated with a lack of community engagement (measured simply via if you know your neighbors’ names or not, and how often you talk to them). In fact, daily Internet users are more likely to know their neighbors’ names, and talk with them face to face, than non Internet users.

What does this all mean? One could argue that people clearly prefer the social interaction of face-to-face communication with their neighbors above other means of communication – and that’s probably true to a point. But the other side of the issue is that people probably find themselves in situations fairly often where they are face-to-face with neighbors, and talk about community issues naturally occurs. (e.g., picking up kids off at school, doing yard work, or waiting for the elevator). Meanwhile, to use the telephone or the Internet requires a deliberate decision to say “I want to talk to my neighbors about this issue right now.”

If this is the case, then part of what’s needed is more thinking into how to better integrate local community into everyday Internet use. Just as the New Urbanists have sought to put front porches on homes to get people talking, developers of online tools like social networks can begin to think about how to create virtual opportunities for a “neighborly chat”. Looking at the exploding popularity of location-based apps like Foursquare, it seems these possibilities should only be growing.

Another issue that the report highlights is that while people who don’t know their neighbors’ names interact on a face-to-face and telephone basis far less than average, but still use online tools just as much as those residents who do know their neighbors. This means that online tools can be a gateway for people who are new to an area or have previously not been interested in community issues to begin to get engaged with their neighbors.

How can we begin to create these appropriate online spaces for neighborly interaction? In Boston, a group founded by community activist Joseph Porcelli has created a model platform called neighborsforneighbors.org that helps local neighborhood residents communicate and organize themselves online. The entirely volunteer run operation helps 18 neighborhoods manage vibrant discussion forums and blogs, and has generated interest from other cities that want to replicate its success.

Should efforts like these take off, it will be interesting to see how the figures reported by Pew change over time. Ideally, the growth of locally focused and interactive online tools will both increase the number of people meeting face-to-face, as well as online.

 

Christian Madera writes the Open Cities column for Next American City. He is a former managing editor of Planetizen, and has spent the last decade working in the fields of urban planning policy and web technology. He is currently a master's degree candidate at the Woodrow Wilson School of International and Public Affairs at Princeton University.

 

This I Believe -The Power of Presence - Are you present?

Some days you just need to be inspired, lifted up and have your thinking challenged.  Today is one of those days for me.  There is a lot happening with our business - all really exciting and fun.  But, I just was in one of those moods where I needed something more.

Whenever I feel like this, I have two websites that I turn to.  The first is TED, with new videos being added everyday, I can always find something to challenge my thinking, inspire me and make me want to leave this world better than when I found it. 

The second is This I Believe. If you haven't heard of This I Believe, it's based on a 1950s radio program that was hosted by Edward R. Murrow, where Americans from all walks of life, from women like Eleanor Roosevelt and Helen Keller to everyday folks like Mr and Mrs. Oliver Hale, who each wrote and read about their beliefs, what they believe in and how those beliefs guided them through each day. 

Header
The radio program was revived in 2005 to 2009, on National Public Radio and in Canada essays from Canadians were featured on the CBC during 2007.  Once again the essays came from the famous to people like you and me.  And like the essays from the 1950's radio show they are read by the writers.  Today I listened to "The Power of Presence" by Debbie Hall of Escondido, California.  She writes about "the simple healing power of presence", how the act of being there for others, while not highly valued in our "doing" culture, is something that you will never regret doing and from it you will never be the same.

As I read Debbie's essay, I thought about my own life. I like to think and hope that when my family and friends have needed me to be there, I have been.  But then I thought about my day to day life.  And I asked myself, I am present?  When I'm with the people I care about, people I know or work with and even those that I have just met, in our day to day meetings, I am present?  If I am being honest with myself, I have to say that all to often I'm not.  Too often I'm thinking about other things, checking my email or seeing who's checking in on Foursquare. I wondered, what if I chose to be present in those situations?  Actively worked on being in the moment.  Be actively present with each person that crosses my path each day.  As Debbie points out in her essay, "presence is a noun...it is a state of being, not doing." 

In a world where we talk a lot about being connected, building relationships and being engaged, I wonder what we could accomplish if we chose to simply be present in each of our interactions with each other. 

PreservationNation » Blog Archive » Cuba Offers Lessons on Community, Preservation

The lesson said in another way — preservation needs to go beyond the public’s image that our goals are to save important buildings, and to convince the public that our goal is to protect and preserve “place.” Economic development is successful when people flock to a “place.” And in most cases “place” centers around the built environment which isn’t limited to a few historic buildings that need to be preserved. To be relevant with today’s public preservation needs to reach out and remind the public that one of the items they hold most dear is “place.” It’s where they live, work and play. It’s not only about the old train station or a historic building on Main Street. Place is everywhere. And while it should not be preservationists’ goal to preserve everything ever built, preservation stands for the concept that most of the places we all hold most dear are actually worth the efforts to save them. Only then will the public understand what is at stake and want to participate in our efforts.
To read the whole post go to blogs.nationaltrust.org

Really interesting post from Preservation Nation. Perhaps there is a lesson we in Niagara and beyond can learn about helping our community to understand, respect and protect those places that make our community the “place” we want to live in.