No, I am 52. I think I decided I was smarter than all my teachers around 5th grade, and developed a strong tendency to question authority. That is really what I meant by competitiveness, not any desire to overtly "win," but just to march to the beat of my own drum. In the realm of logic and reason, this has served me well. But, one of the most important things I have gained from yoga is to recognize the limitations of my rational mind. I could not foresee how a regular practice of yoga would change me. So, there is an element of faith there, to embark on any practice that proceeds in such tiny increments. I mean, you can make the rational arguments about fitness, etc., but I am the type to ask "but what then?" I have found the female teachers to be more motivational in that regard, but you are right, it might just be hormones.
I agree with you on the importance of confidence. Not so much about the techniques, but to convey the underlying motivational message "this will make you happy," "do this more often," "it is worth the effort," "you are good," "we are blessed," "I believe." You hear it in the tone of voice, in a language that probably goes back to our earliest grunts and is hard to fake. But, in my own experience, I have not found that male teachers are better at this. On the contrary, the undercurrent I often hear in their voices is "this is what they told me to say, this is how I make my living." I don't imagine I am hearing anything that I could not read in a book. I think that is simply because I am a man, so can more easily and automatically put myself into their shoes and be less moved. There is probably an element of competitiveness that makes me want to diminish them. I can see how that same dynamic would work oppositely for female students.
Yes, let's not forget that there is a powerful attraction of complimentary opposites that is not always a "daddy issue" or a "mommy issue." By my reading of cultural history, all fathers were emotionally absent 50 years ago. And young women believed they needed a man to complete them. If this did not always work out so well, we may say the same about today's urge toward self reliance. The history of love has always been written by the losers. Not to suggest we turn back the clock, but just to recognize these are all cultural constructions, notions about how we are "supposed to be" that will change, as we try to find our way. And, if we are going to put up any false idols, we could do a lot worse than a man or woman we love.
As a man, I have asked myself the same thing about my preference for female teachers. There are many things at work, but one thing I realized is that if a man tells me something is true, my first reaction is "you do not know any better than I" and I will put my critical faculties to work evaluating his advice. If a woman tells me something, I seem willing to believe she has access to some special intuitive knowledge that is not immediately accessible to my logical thought processes, and I will just accept it viscerally.
But probably more than that is I have long standing insecurities about what I am supposed to do to please a woman. So, it is really a delight when she just tells me what to do. If we were engaged in some more goal directed activity like trying to win a game, these kind of issues would more easily remain below the surface. But, in yoga, we are mostly just being. This offers a blank slate for all of our projections to play out. I guess it is a lot like a non-reactive therapist who just keeps nodding.
Thanks Mark! I am optimistic. Not just about plants pulling more CO2 from the atmosphere, but also for a slow down in the decay processes that put it back.
Thinking more about this taking "sides," it is striking. The real issue here could not more obviously be a continuum: Are we going to warm by 1 degree, 2 degrees, 3 degrees, or 10? Yet, we have somehow found a way to marshall our arguments around a mostly meaningless yes or no question that has only one virtue: it lets us join one team or the other. It is the same thing we see in our political process. David did not even address the substance of your last post, except to say the person you referenced is on the wrong team.
This is also exactly why we should not place our bets on CO2 emissions control. Our most formidable adversary on this planet has always been other humans. Cooperation for "the good of the species" is the last thing in our minds or in our genes. And, if we indeed want to go that route, and think about some idea of a common good for all mankind, we would need to start by saying the US has long since exhausted its global carbon budget, and may as well turn off the lights right now. I do not think we are ready to do that, which is why we need to grow through this challenge, not shrink from it.
Thanks Mark. My point about the "sides" was simply that it's not black and white. There is a continuum of scientific opinion about how much warming will occur. The questions you raised about feedback loops are very much to the point. On the face of it, one could expect that higher concentrations of CO2 would accelerate its uptake by plant life, while at the same time slowing the decay processes that return it back into the atmosphere. In fact, a recent study indicates the earth has doubled its uptake of CO2 over the past 50 years ( see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/02/earths-co2-... ). This has nothing to do with whether man is causing warming. It may have a great deal to do with how we can best respond to it.
I remain baffled by what you mean by "swayed all the way," or "the other side," as if there is some essential yes or no question at issue here. Suppose global warming is caused by increased solar output. Does that mean we should sit back and be fried? No. What matters is the magnitude of warming we can expect, how we might mitigate it, and how we can adapt to it. These are not yes or no questions and there are a wide range of scientific views. Clearly, additional C02 in the atmosphere retains more of the sun's energy. Reducing the 33 Gigatons that humans generate annually by burning fossil fuel will likely reduce the warming effect. Whether that will succeed remains to be determined. Organic decay and forest fires add far more than fossil fuel, about 439 Gigatons annually. A small change in those much larger contributors might be more effective. My main concern is that humans have a built in emotional attraction to turning back the clock, that may draw us toward the wrong solutions here. Polarizing debate around a mostly meaningless question will not help matters.
I think you are a little disingenuous in your citations of science. You correctly assert that the climate is warming and human activity is a major cause. But then you jump to warning of total planetary biological collapse and human extinction by 2100, as if the majority of scientists are with you on that. Where do you find that consensus?
And if the threat is really that severe, shouldn't we be doing a lot more than reducing human CO2 emissions? Organic decay and forest fires pump 439 Gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, dwarfing the 33 Gigatons added by burning of fossil fuels. Shouldn't we be trying to control those much larger sources as well? Or, would you be in favor of launching sulfur into the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight, as one Nobel Prize winning Scientist has proposed? (see
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/0... ).
In general, warmer temperatures lead to more ocean evaporation and more precipitation. You are right that it could fall in all the wrong places. So, the safest bet is to not let anything change. Except that may not be possible. So, we need to make sure we are not clinging to the past for emotional reasons when there may be new pathways forward if we can adapt to change. Also, bear in mind that a large portion of the human population is not exactly thrilled with their lives today. They will not be easily persuaded to forgo improvements in their own children's lives today to avoid potential problems for our species in the future.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Production