I have been doing a little remodeling to an old garage that is next to my home in California. This is a 1935 era house that I recently purchased, needing a “bit” of fixes and upgrades. Many years ago I was a small time general building contractor doing upgrades, small additions and repairs. Kind of a licensed “handyman” sort of thing with a small crew of permanent helpers and a wide variety of subcontractors. The nature of this work resulted in my being “adequate” in many trades for small projects. A bit of a “Jack of All Trades, Master of None.” Even though I haven’t been in that business for many years I have maintained my license in an “inactive” state.

Since the garage upgrade is a small project I elected to do most of the work myself. I am now puzzling over adding some ceiling lights and a few plugs so I can use the space as my woodshop. My first instinct was to just do the work based upon my experience – but decided it might be fun to get more inquisitive and investigate new practices, materials and changes to the National Electric Code (NEC). Checking the new electrical codes reveals a surprising number of changes over the past few decades, and I find many new items on the store shelves. I am researching things as I go along, finding many new items in the stores – especially new tools and parts.

I would like to discuss a couple of the issues that I have been pondering – not so much because of the technical aspects of the topic, but more interestingly because of the nature of the arguments among “qualified” tradesmen (licensed electricians or experienced tradesmen). I find their approach to finding “truth” and “good solutions” to be interesting, and not a little scary. I selected my examples because of ease of understanding the issues, but I find similar problems exist in almost all technical fields.

A couple of the issues that I have heard argued over the years is how to make a proper wire junction and connection to an electrical device (e.g., a switch). Wire nuts are a popular means of joining wires within electrical boxes because they are quick, easy and meet code. Wire nuts are plastic devices containing a coiled spring that is “screwed” (by hand) onto two or more wires – making a solid electrical and physical connection between the wires. They come in various sizes to accommodate different sizes and number of wires to be joined. The main argument that hear about them is whether or the wires go straight into wire nut, or are they supposed to be twisted together first. Sort of like this:

Most electricians that I talk to insist that it is necessary to first tightly twist the wires together and then install the plastic connector. Not only do they take this position, but the electricians I know are pretty derogatory about “lazy, incompetent” people taking dangerous “short cuts” by not twisting the wires. This is actually a pretty big deal because of the connection isn’t tight enough it can overheat because of resistance or arcing, resulting in a fire – or if over tightened it can damage the wires, leading to broken wires and all sorts of problems, including fire.

The NEC is almost silent on this topic. It says, “Conductors shall be spliced or joined with splicing devices identified for the use.” While that sounds pretty vague, it actually means a lot – it means a device that is “rated” for the use, meaning it is designed for the application and listed by a testing agency such as UL AND that it is installed according to the manufacturer’s instructions (that were used as the basis for the UL testing). So, it has to be an acceptable device for the use, and it has to be used properly in accordance with specific, written, manufacturer’s instructions. In several cases that I could track down, the manufacturers instructions indicated that the wires should NOT to be twisted before use, but instead straight wires are inserted – the device does the correct twisting. A few manufacturers state that either approach is acceptable, but give no means of knowing how to determine if they are twisted properly. My guess is that they left that there to make old timers happy, but actually intend the wires to be inserted and then twisted.

There is no way to determine correct twisting in the field because it depends upon unobservable and untestable practices. This is one of the reasons that the devices have been designed like they are, if the specific directions are followed there is a large body of testing and verification to support the claim of a correct installation. Depending upon the “skill” of the installer is extremely dangerous. As a safety engineer, I far prefer a designed and tested solution to one that depends upon personal skill.

Another example of an electrical mystery has to do with connecting wires to devices (switches, receptacles, etc.) Most 15 Amp receptacles used in houses are provided with two means of connecting wires to them. There are usually four screws on the sides for power and one screw for the ground wire. Sometimes there are also four little holes in the back where wires can be inserted to make the connections. “Real” electricians once again claim that only lazy and unprofessional installers use the holes, they claim that the only “professional” installation is using the screws. There was actually a problem when these screwless connectors were developed because they were designed for 12 gauge wire. Since 12g wire (larger diameter) and 14g wire (smaller diameter) are used in residential applications, sometimes the manufacturer’s instructions were not followed specifying that ONLY 12g wire be used in the back connections, resulting in instances where the connections were not tight enough. That problem has been solved by making the holes smaller, they can no longer be used with the larger wire and therefore the connections are tight enough with the 14g wire. That was a problem with relying upon instructions rather than design to get good results.

The electricians that I have talked to, and read about in electrical chat rooms, say that side-wiring is best. However, side wiring requires a lot of skill, is prone to several errors, and isn’t testable because it depends upon the skill of the individual installer. It requires the wire to be cut the correct length (not an obvious thing to do), needs to be bent to the correct shape (without a guide or means of measuring), needs to be installed in the correct direction (easily mistaken), and the wire has to be property located under the head of the terminal screw (difficult to do or inspect). And then, it has to be properly tightened (not too tight or too loose). In addition, for some reason that I can’t figure out, the terminal screws are designed to make it almost impossible to get the wire loop into the available space. All of this opens many avenues for error, and eventual overheating and fire.

Clearly a better solution is needed, and that seems to be back wiring using straight, unbent, wires, that have a good solid connection feature. This can be achieved with property manufactured spring devices that are designed and tested (as it the case for all major brands), a back wired approach with hand tightened screws (good, but require torque measurements), or the newer back fed devices with a lever clamp. Once again, the “professionals” seem to be working off of old “wives tales” (industry wisdom) rather than science and engineering. I find that to often be the case, many in the building profession claim that they know best, that the manufacturers don’t know what they are talking about, so the professionals don’t follow the instructions – feeling so much superior to the companies that design, test and verify their designs. I know that once in a while the designers make mistakes, and I know that sometimes installations that work at first fail over time, but I also know that they are a much better chance at getting it right than the typical trades-person who learned his trade from the “good old boys” in the profession. Things are often more complicated than they appear – which is why there is so much effort made in testing and verifying designs and products.

The points that I am trying to make aren’t that “professional electricians” don’t know what they are talking about, or are somehow incompetent. I am hoping to point out that there is a tendency for people, even very experienced professionals, to make assumptions about how things work (or should work), therefore
“fixing” problems incorrectly, often inadvertently making the problems worse. There is often a conflict between how we imagine things work resulted in our making up a “better” solution that in the end causes problems attributed to “human error.” The error often isn’t so much in doing something “wrong” (as in mistakenly), rather it is often due to mistakes in understand how things actually work. A couple of recent airplane crashes can be attributed to that sort of “error,” an error in understanding how the flight controls work resulted in improper use, resulting in crashed airliners.

I came upon an interesting article by Carol Harvey in the May 27, 2025 edition of the Press Democrat (Sonoma County, California) called, “Close to Home: Being single need not mean aging alone.” The article focused on the plight of single older women, but perhaps applies to all of us in our “golden years.”

The author’s main point is that it is very dangerous to be lonely. My opinion is that it is not only dangerous, it isn’t much fun. She describes her experience of being involved in a small group called WREN, Women’s Resource and Empowerment Network. What she describes is a group of widowed, divorced and unpartnered women over 50 years old. I think their ideas could, and probably should, but extended to everyone fitting that general description – both men and women. As the Baby Boomers age there are more and more folks meeting this criteria, and less and less availability of public support for this group of individuals. The group isn’t limited to those that are somehow physically compromised, but instead includes those that find themselves in an isolated island having to depend upon themselves for most everything – without the support of family or friends. I also think it is much larger than just single persons, my guess is that many aging couples could use support from outside of the two of them trying to manage together. I think is should perhaps be more like, “REN” (Resource and Empowerment Network) or something to signify a much broader network than just women.

The idea of this group is to purposefully create a group of individuals, probably strangers to begin with because the lack of a group of friends is the source of the problem. It might just be random neighbors. People join together by making an offer to support and assist each other – providing a kind of built-in permission to ask each other for favors without imposing upon friends and family. There is no worry about imposing, and no expectations of not being able to assist when we can’t. The request becomes as simple as “I need assistance doing ….., is there someone who can help?” There are no expectations or obligations for offering or receiving assistance. That is the deal, and that is the end of it.

I find this idea of offering assistance without strings being attached is similar to my years working as part of a volunteer fire department. When someone needs help they call 911, we show up as a support team, freely giving our time and potentially exposing ourselves to great risks just because we want to do that. If we come and help you with whatever emergency you have, that is done once we are done. You owe us nothing, not even a “thank you.” Our service is free to you, we get nothing physical in return, but we all enjoy the opportunity to help and be of assistance. Since I was a volunteer there were many times that I wasn’t available to assist, but the group of firemen is large enough that it was very rare that we couldn’t respond – in which case someone else would show up because we were part of a much larger network of responders.

Ms Harvey provided a list of ideas to help create this kind of informal, people based, support group:

• Invite people from across various social circles. Start small – four to eight people.
• Focus on creating a new community, not reframing existing friendships. Work out some of the kinks, then invite new members over time.
• Plan events such as potlucks to get acquainted. Have business meetings once or twice a year (more in the beginning) to discuss what’s working and what could be improved upon.
• Create a structure for decision-making and managing administrative tasks. Be proactive; aim for consensus and clarity.

Personally, I think there should be more meetings that once or twice a year – I think every month or six weeks is a better frequency. I have a group of neighbors that sometimes have “pop up” potlucks on the spur of the moment. We all live “in the country” miles from stores, so the fun of it is to bring whatever you might have to offer without having to make a trip to the store! This works by someone in group feeling a need for a bit of social, then “calling” for a pot luck that day. Those that can make it do, and they bring whatever they might have to share – sometimes resulting in interesting meals. We don’t quite meet the requirements for a PEN because we are a group of friends, meaning that it is someone an imposition to ask for assistance. We all try to help each other when there is a need, but someone has to recognize the need first – it is somehow socially incorrect to request assistance. The assistance might be just stopping by once in awhile to chat, or maybe bring a meal when someone is ill, or give a ride to the doctor. The group might want to determine the bounds of the volunteer service.

I think there are many possible advantages with forming a group such as this beyond just having a source of mutual assistance when needed. It could form the background for true community building across a broader community – perhaps bringing people together who would normally never come into contact with each other (which is one of the benefits of the volunteer fire department – it is community based rather than social group based). Having a community to assist each other would be great, but it would be even better to bring together normally disparate groups – perhaps opening conversations and mutual understandings that would otherwise not occur.

I live on a cul-de-sac with perhaps 40 houses. I wonder what would happen if I were to knock on doors to invite a few folks to join a thing like that. I see many of the people, drive by, or walking their dogs, but that is about the end of our contact. I often have time to be of assistance, and now and then could use some help. I wonder how many, if any at all, would be interested in doing such a thing. I know that many of us retired “oldsters” are watching the world conditions today, asking ourselves “what can I do to help this?” Perhaps it is just as simple as finding ways to meet and help each other a few at a time.

I have a rather puzzling story that perhaps is indicative of some of what ails the world today.

I have a new lady (Catherine Lee Neifing) in my life who has been an accomplished artist for most of her life. Most of her works are standard paintings on canvas, some are three-dimension constructions, and then there are the many sketch books and other media. Over the years she has accumulated hundreds of these works – selling many prints, selling some originals, but keeping many of the larger and more spectacular paintings.

Here are a couple small images of some of her paintings.

If you are interested, you can view many more on her website https://www.catherinelee.com/

Unfortunately, her works are stored away in a garage and her studio in a way that makes them difficult to view. For example, many of her larger (4 ft by 6 ft or larger) works are rolled up for storage and are therefore not readily accessible. There are stacks and stacks of paintings, prints, sketches and other things – all of which I want to someday see and experience. I have seen glimpses of some of her “hidden” work that totally blow me away – they just sort of stop me in my tracks and mesmerize me as I stand and absorb the “vibes” of the image. Many are “just” paintings, but quite a few grab me by the short hairs on my neck and make me pay attention.

I recently purchased an old house in the town of Sonoma (think wine country) in California. This old house cries out for “art” to set the mood but is just too small to display more than a few paintings. Therefore we have been looking for a place to unpack her work and hang them for display. We have been looking for a space that has enough walls to hold the works, is protected from the environment, suitably lit, and secure. Many of the items are not framed or stretched, some have small damage needing repair and some are unfinished works. This results in a requirement for a rather large space to house the materials, and provide room to work. Not only do we need sufficient wall area, but we need to have the ability to light the art in order to properly view the objects.

Our goal is to create something like a temporary gallery displaying some of her work. We don’t anticipate opening the gallery to the public, we just want to see it to figure out what to do with it. I have a sense of urgency about this project because our time is clearly limited. She is 75, I turn 78 this weekend. The question before us has to do with figuring out what to do with all of this work. If she just ignores it, her two boys will inherent the art- but what are they going to do with it? They can’t fix the items that are damaged or incomplete and most likely will not have the ability or desire to do much of anything with it. Then what? It seems better to sort it out now, while Cathy is able to assist in the project of sorting out the good from the not-so-good, and trying to figure out their future homes. Perhaps some can be sold, perhaps some might be displayed somewhere – it is all a mystery to me.

In any case, we have been searching for a suitable building that we can afford to rent for awhile as the works are hung, sorted, fixed and enjoyed. For a little while we had a fantasy of perhaps paying for this space by opening a gallery where she could sell some of the works. This approach might have the advantage of paying for itself, while getting her materials once again out into public view. After all, what good is art if nobody sees it? Art is meant to be viewed and enjoyed, not rolled up in the dark corner of a garage somewhere.

We found a couple suitable empty stores on the Sonoma Plaza – but of course these were pretty expensive, meaning that the “sales” aspects of the store would become the focus rather than meeting our needs to view and figure out what to do with her work. The more I thought about it, the more it became obvious that we would be taking on a bigger project than we are prepared to do, and in the process would likely miss doing what we want to do.

We had just about given up hope when we found out about a big old building a 1/4 of a block from the plaza that might meet our needs. It is a rather odd building, perhaps three stories high but with access only to the first story. In effect, it has a ten foot ceiling and a HUGE unaccessible attic. I don’t know the age of the building, but my guess is it is probably from around the 1880’s. Covered in rusting corrugated metal siding, sporting a filthy canvas awning over the front entrance- with a tiny grungy toilet and not much else. The building has been unoccupied for the past ten years and has been allowed to deteriorate as it sat forlorn next to the main street through town. However, it is just right for us. It is inconspicuous and unnoticed, giving it a bit of security. There are few windows, making it easy to install security devices. There are track lights suspended from the ceiling installed by the previous tenet making it easy to light. And it has lots of space for displaying art and setting up a small workshop. It is ugly and filthy, but perfectly suited for our needs.

It turns out that the reason that it sits empty is that it is located on the site of a future new hotel. Once the owner gets permission to build the hotel, the building will be demolished. The temporary nature of the availability, and the state of decay of the building, makes it unrentable as a normal business. It is just sitting there, creating a tax and insurance liability – waiting to be demolished. This is fine with us, we are looking for a temporary location for just about the same amount of time as the owner thinks it will take to finish getting permission from the city to build his hotel. We don’t care that the building is ugly, or that parking is difficult – we don’t want or expect any public traffic. We don’t care that the floors are terrible, or that the walls need painting. None of those things that would normally be required to create a serviceable store are required. We just want weather proof, secure space.

We got a tour of the building by the owner’s agent. It all looked great. When I asked how much it would cost, he suggested that I make an offer. I offered $1,000 a month for a month-to-month lease that could be terminated at will by the owner once his project was ready to move forward. In some ways this was a ridiculously low offer for a 2800 square foot building in the very popular center of town in Sonoma. I was offering about $0.30 a square foot for space that would normally rent for around $10.00 a square foot if it was rentable – but in this case it isn’t rentable (as evidenced by sitting empty for more than ten years). A thousand dollars a month just to look at Cathy’s work is expensive for us, but it seems like fun and worth the money. Of course, it is a tiny fraction of what the building would be worth if the building was worth anything – which it isn’t. The property is worth $1M (or more), but the building is worth less than nothing because it will have to be torn down to be usable at all. My logic for my low offer was that while it wouldn’t make much of a “profit” for the owner, it would generate a small amount of income to partially offset some of the costs of maintaining an empty building, and would help out an artist that could make use of the building – without adding extra costs for the building owner. We would of course cover the costs of things that we needed such as electricity, renter’s insurance, etc.

The agent took my offer to the owner, and it wasn’t rejected outright! That surprised me – I expected a flat “no.” Instead of a “no” we were told that they were working on a lease agreement. We were excited – it looked like we were going to be able to start our project soon.

However, when we got the paper work for the lease it was much different than my offer. First off, it wasn’t a month-to-month at $1000 a month, it was six months for $6000 followed by a month-to-month at $1700 a month! What??? Why the big jump? Then it turns out that they were proposing a variation of a triple-net lease – but without any information about how much that might cost.

A triple-net lease is one where the lessee pays some amount for rent (in this case $1000 a month), but also pays ALL of the expenses for the property. These extra items include things like property taxes, the property owner’s attorneys fees, accounting fees, tax preparation, building insurance, etc, etc. The outcome is the building owner pays nothing because the lessee pays for it all and also pays rent. This is a normal form of most commercial leases these days – which I generally agree are “fair.” Obviously the lessee will end up paying for all of the expenses for the building. As a property owner I would set my rates to cover all of my expenses plus whatever “profit” I think I can get. Any unmet expenses will have to come out of the “profit” – but they will be met. Nobody wants to have a business where they lose money as an intended outcome.

However, in this particular case it is a bit different. In this case all of those additional expenses are being paid by the owner if it is not leased – and there is little or no potential for renting the building. The building has been creating a net loses for the owner for over ten years and will continue to do so until such time as it is demolished. My offer was a net “increase” in profits in the sense that it offsets ongoing loses.

I think we had a win-win deal in our hands. I would get a place that meets our temporary needs at a price that I am willing to afford; they would get a very flexible temporary tenant willing to vacate when needed. They make a few bucks while maintaining their flexibility, we get an affordable space to evaluate and plan for what to do with Cathy’s art. However, rather than that, the owner decided to offer a deal that would cover all of their costs and create a true profit. Not only that, but they didn’t give me a hint of how much those additional costs might turn out to be – they expected me to sign a blank check for whatever they might decide to charge me in the future. I assume that would be at least double what I offered, but perhaps much more. I of course walked away from the “deal” – it was no deal for us.

At first I was a bit insulted by the response, then I realized that it wasn’t an insult of any sort – it was just a “business as usual” sort of thing. As I have been pondering this situation for the past couple of days I realize that there is something more here that seems really important to what is happening in the world today. There is a much larger importance to the owner’s desire to throw away a small income by demanding a much larger profit (that is impossible for them to get). They must have known that I wouldn’t accept their counter offer – it was just too far away from my offer. Knowing this they decided that it would be better to keep losing money than to give someone a break.

There is something deeply unsettling about this approach to doing business. Instead of accepting an offer that would make some money a decision was made to demand unacceptable rates. Maybe what is unsettling is that the “give and take” of bartering is missing. Our economy used to be based upon the notion of mutual agreement concerning the value and cost of things – originally implemented by face-to-face bartering. This worked when there was a fair distribution of goods. It didn’t work when one party had all of what was needed and therefore the “power” between the participants was uneven. Monopolies where one person controls all of a much needed commodity fail the “fairness test” and therefore result in great unfairness in the market place. It turns out that the owner of the property that I was seeking also owns much of the commercial real estate in town. If you want to get a space in that area you will just have to meet his price. There is no incentive, or desire, to negotiate or determine actual value or exchange.

That seems to be where we are now in the global economy. We keep getting impacted by things that are blatantly “unfair” but might makes right, so we pay what we have to pay. For example, prices rise when a supply shortage occurs just because they can be raised, but they do not return to the original value when the shortage no longer exists. Those in power change what they want, and you either take it or leave it. There is no “working together” involved, it is all about taking as much as you can get regardless of the impacts to others – often referred to as greed. This is how very large businesses became so insanely rich. Microsoft didn’t create billions of dollars in profits because their product was difficult to make, it made those profits because it cornered the market (with a virtual monopoly) and changed as much as they could get. As we became more and more dependent upon technology large businesses just kept raising and raising their profit margins because they can. This is now the world order, how else could the cost of telephone service have risen to hundreds of dollars a month – we HAVE to have it now, so we pay whatever it costs. As long as we can pay that much, then they will change that much.

My question is whether or not we can sustain a situation like this. As a business person, my goal was to produce a service/product that gives me a reasonable return on my investment. For example, I think a profit on the order of 10% of my annual sales would be marvelous. When I was in the residential solar business I was thrilled by the ability to make 5% profit on a sales. This means that if it cost me $10,000 for a system, I would change an additional $500 “profit.” That doesn’t seem like much, but since all my expenses were covered by the cost of the system, it was a huge source of income. I was just a small three person business, typically installing two systems a week. That is about 100 systems a year. At $500 a system in profits, that netted me $50,000 a year in profit (after all of my expenses including my labor) from a business that had close to zero capital – it was all labor and borrowed product (I would purchase the equipment on credit, get paid before the bill came due, so never actually had to pay for anything out of my pocket). Was I being “greedy” by changing this much in profit? Possibly, it certainly made a lot of money for me. However, the system that I sold for $10,000 was normally sold by my competitors for $20,000, with an estimated profit of $500,000 a year! The reason that solar contractors can get away with such huge profits is that solar is so cheap and so effective that even the high prices get “paid back” in ten years (mine got paid back in five years). It is a “good” business decision for the customer – and therefore “what the market will bear” creates massive profits for some. Can we run a world like that?

I don’t know how we fix this problem, but it is very clear that setting prices because something is “worth it” results in massive divisions of wealth. As technology advanced, the idea of pricing based upon what something is “worth” instead of what is “costs” to create is upsetting the world order. I don’t think that it is feasible to legislate price controls based upon some arbitrary profit margin, but I am certain that the current unbridled greed based business practices will eventually end up killing the chicken that lays the golden egg.

I am finding that all of the news about what Trump and his staff are doing is very discouraging. How in the world can this be happening? What can be done to get them under control? It is shocking how many people seem to think that the ends justify the means with regard to Trump’s wild and unpredictable actions. I get it that there are great injustices in America – many people are too poor, many have not enough options, and many are chronically discouraged (and depressed) because of their situation. I get it that they want things to change so they get a better “deal” out of life. However, I don’t understand how they can accept the attacks upon all that makes America great in the hopes that they might get a personal boost.

I think I understand where the poor and disadvantaged are coming from – I think they feel that they are at the bottom, so what is there to lose? I have a harder time understanding those that are doing well. They are being supported by the American Dream, the infrastructure and the good works of the government’s uses of taxes. They wouldn’t be doing so good if it weren’t for roads, schools, military protection, and all they rest that they unknowingly depend upon – and they should know better. I suppose they expect a huge financial boost from Trump’s self serving attacks on America. I was taught that once you have “enough” then you have enough – more doesn’t help make things better for you or those around you. The path to being truly “rich” is in knowing when you have enough.

What I don’t get is how so many are so willing to give up our hard won “rights” as contained in our Constitution. How can it be alright to kidnap innocent people (“innocent” means “until proven guilty” – remember?) and send them to out-of-the-country prisons? Why not take a bit of time and sort the good from the bad? What if the innocent ones include you or your children? Would that be OK then? How do you know it won’t be you unless you are certain that there are checks based upon the rule of law and moral behavior?

The list of terrible, impetuous and stupid actions and mistakes made by Trump and his minions fill the papers, books and television these days – but seemingly without changing the opinions of Trump’s “supporters” (cult members). His supporters are willing to accept unbridled bad behavior for the promise of achieving more money, more power, more imagined security.

All of this could make a person quite depressed. I find it totally discouraging, but wonder what will come from it in the future. I can envision many possible futures. Surely things will change, but whether those changes will be “good” or “bad” is difficult to know. I have a ray of hope that Trump’s excesses will finally make it clear how dangerous allowing leaders too much power can become. Maybe his actions will become a lesson for the world about how NOT to run a country.

I find that this situation has some interesting impacts on me. For one thing, I have pretty much stopped following the news. I avoid the news because I know that it is going to be filled with horror stories of what is happening to our government and economy, and that we are being pelted with evil and stupidity day in and day out. The best I can do is try to duck and cover until something changes in a way that I can influence. The current frenzied actions by the administration reminds me of an out of control dog fight. I don’t want to reach into the fight to try to stop it. The dogs are going to have to figure out how to stop it themselves, then perhaps we can help restore peace and rebuild the shambles of the Country left standing.

Instead of risking my life and limbs by reaching into the chaos, I have been wondering about what it all means. Why do I even care (about anything)? I started my pondering by getting as simple as I could by wondering what I am “supposed” to be doing, and it gets down to “not much.” From a biological point of view, my task is to find enough to eat, find suitable shelter and procreate. Actually, it is just the last item – the others are important to allow that to happen. It doesn’t matter if I am a gopher, or a spider, a persimmon tree or a person – all of us have the same “purpose.”

That small list is interesting in its own right, but seems rather useless because it doesn’t provide me with much guidance on how to have a “better” life. Once it became clear that I want to believe that there is more to life, I started thinking about what I do during my days, and is there something that I would rather be doing. I do a lot of really trivial and silly things. I mess around with my computer, I eat, bath, build things now and then, go for rides to see what I can see, “work” by doing things for others in exchange for money – I keep myself busy, but without much meaning. I can’t shake the feeling expressed in MacBeth’s description of life: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Perhaps. But is that the end of the story? I think not. Perhaps Shakespeare was correct that it is all just action and emotions with no purpose or end, but is there something more?

The question comes up of; “What is it that I want out of life?” Am I content to just respond to what comes up minute by minute? Getting up, taking a shower, fixing breakfast, watching the birds in the bushes, etc, etc, etc. Or is there something else that I want to do that gives direction to it all? If there isn’t any intrinsic purpose to life, perhaps I am free to create my own purpose – if there is no inherent goal, maybe I can just make a goal for the fun of making a goal – knowing that reaching it doesn’t make a bit of difference because it is just something I made up to for myself. Sometimes is seems that perhaps my personal goals are just to have fun and be thought of as a good guy. Maybe that is all there is.

While these really simple goals seem plausible, my artist girlfriend pointed out that I was missing “love” in my discussion. Humph! ….. Love, what’s love got to do with it? Maybe the Beatles had something to say about that with their song “All you need is love.” Maybe there is something here that I should consider in my thoughts on the meaning of life.

I am wondering about a kind of love that is different from romantic love or love of a thing or a love of an experience. I am thinking that perhaps there is something of importance concerning what might be termed “universal love.” As I think back upon my life I realize that there have been a few times when I came face-to-face with an overwhelming feeling of “connectiveness.” This is a feeling of being simultaneously totally connected with everything on earth, and at the same time being totally isolated as just myself but in an extremely comfortable and “meaningful” way. Almost melancholy, but in a sort of “spacey,” comfortable, floating way. Not sad, but not exactly happy either – closer to quiet euphoria. Maybe it is a bit like a single cell in my body would feel if it could feel such things. I am a critical part of the whole, and at the same time an isolated and not so important single entity. It is one and the same, both totally connected but not really important. I have had experiences where that seems correct. (No, not when high on drugs – just high on nature)

I find I can imagine myself in that place of being separately connected just by stopping to “smell the roses,” or as one author put it, “To see the lights in the trees.” Many artists strive to communicate and demonstrate this feeling by their works. Authors do the same. I try to share that experience, but am usually far from being on target. The perspective I am talking about demands compassion, empathy and reaching out to help. It is my experience that you can’t experience this state of mind without those attributes, and the experience naturally engenders those kinds of “loving” feelings.

So… perhaps my “goal” or “purpose” for my life is to be more open to this experience, and then attempt to do as artists do in trying to share the beauty. If I share this with others it is impossible to also judge them negatively because that is the entire point – we (every animal, plant, other things) are all one and the same. We are part of the big life on earth. Maybe the Beatles got it right – the path to world peace and harmony with nature is “all you need is love” – a rather mystical and gossamer feeling, but one that cannot be denied once experienced. Maybe a worthwhile goal is to find that feeling as share it when appropriate.

Hello to my readers. I have to apologize for taking such a long break from writing my blogs. I have had LOTS of interesting ideas that I would like to write about – but don’t seem to be able to get a big enough hole in my schedule to do so. Mostly I am just lazy. I only seem to have the necessary mental energy for a short period of time in the morning, there are available times in the evening, but I just don’t have the “steam” to do so when the time is available. I hope to be more consistent – but who knows?

I recently moved to a “new” (old) house in Sonoma. Fixing the old house up has been a lot of my time problem. That activity seems to be slowing down a bit so I decided to subscribe to the local newspaper in the hopes of getting my head out of the sand, and perhaps return to writing. I stopped subscribing to a newspaper more than twenty years ago because they stopped delivering it to my home, and at the same time the paper dwindled to just a few pages that weren’t worth the option to also pay for delivery by mail. I like the paper delivered at morning coffee time, not mid-day mail times. I suppose I could have subscribed to a major newspaper with on-line delivery, but just gave up.

Now I find the newspaper waiting for me on my driveway when I get ready for a cup of coffee in the morning. It is a small local newspaper, but has the important sections that I remember with fondness. It even has the funnies section the advice columns! There is a smattering of local news about the usual things such as automobile accidents, local art events, news about the doings of the local schools and politicians, etc. It also has a significant amount of national and international news, plus pointed and interesting commentary on a wide variety of topics. In short, it is a “real” newspaper like that I grew up with seventy years ago. Actually, since my new home is in my old home town, it IS the same newspaper that I grew up with.

I have noticed that there is something very different about a newspaper than the network shows such as CNN, CBS or any others. The differences are mainly two-fold.

The first big difference is about the quantity of items in the newspaper versus whatever you can get with a news program on TV. A quick check of today’s paper identified 40 long (1/2 a page) articles, 25 short local spots, a bunch of sports things, and a lot of general interest material about cooking and gardening. I haven’t counted the number of topics in a typical hour/day of TV news but I am sure it is much smaller for each station (and I can only look at one station at a time). For example, an hour of CNN coverage might include four items – with little actual information but a LOT of commentary. The local San Francisco stations have a little more breadth, but almost no depth.

The second big difference concerns how I approach the news. TV provides a stream of information, separated by hours of advertising spots. I have no choice about what to see, how much I see or in what order. However, with a newspaper it is a completely different experience. I get to skim through the pages looking at headlines and photographs – quickly picking up a background of what is going on in just a few minutes. If something catches my eye I can slowdown and get much more detail, until I get bored and go to the next item. I can always come back for those items that I skipped over. My approach is to read the ones that interest me the most at first, then come back as time allows. I can adjust my exposure depending upon my mood and the available time. I can do that with broadcast news.

I find the experience of reading the news to be much more fulfilling than watching it being shoved to me. I get to go at my pace, get to go as deep as I want, and I get exposed to a MUCH wider body of knowledge. I suppose an on-line subscription to a news paper might meet some of my needs, but it is also a very different experience – one that depends too much on indexes and links. I find myself jumping to the links and missing most of the headlines, photos and short descriptions. It is all there, but I don’t see it with the on-line experience.

I wonder how important this shift in how news is presented is to the overall education of Society. It seems like there is an astounding amount of just plain “ignorance” today. A lot of people just don’t seem to know much about anything. I suspect that is made much worse by the very limited “echo chambers” of “news” presented on TV. There is almost no information provided, and that which is provided is very shallow and biased. There just isn’t the time or the attention for actually getting into a story. I think part of the problem is that a very large percentage of the public are functionally illiterate – they have not learned to read and comprehend written material. If they don’t hear it they can’t get to it. Any presenting material verbally is so slow that it cannot be in much depth.

If it is true that there is something fundamentally better about how news and information is presented in newspapers, what can be done about it? How can we keep newspapers from disappearing? Should we do that, or are they just redundant with our other sources of information such as TV news, books and magazines? I am not sure, but I think we lost something when papers became almost extinct. There are still papers, such as USA Today or the Wall Street Journal, that provide some of the benefits of a news paper – but without the local flavor/color that makes home town papers so interesting (and where are the comics?).

I don’t suppose there is anything to do about this – I just thought it is interesting how differently I interact with the news when it is in a big page on my lap as opposed to a stream of words selected by a producer someplace a long way from me.

My idea of writing blogs about interesting topics is far more difficult than expected. I continue to have “blog worthy” topics aplenty, four or five a day. Sometimes I make notes of them for future reference (and then lose the notes), sometimes I actually start writing them (such as a partially completed one on the topic of what mistakes did the writers of the Constitution make that allow for the current behavior of the President). My unwritten blogs are frustrating to me, but it seems that I would need another “me” to find the time necessary to get to them all. Maybe I make them too long, thereby taking too much time to write – but in reality the topics deserve much more than I give as it is.

Today I am going to attempt a short, and kind of silly, discussion about hair.

The other day I noticed a young lady with a braid reaching down to her butt – I am sure she would sit on it if not careful. On the same day I saw a guy with a big beard reaching to about his belly button. Both of these observations got me to wondering how having such long hair could come about. How could evolution create such an odd state of affairs?

As we all known, humans have several different types of hair – most of which might be better described as “sparse (sometime not so sparse) fur” – hair that only grows to a given length and then stops. While this hair has different characteristics depending upon location on our body, it seems to be self-limiting in length. Arm pit hair, arm hair, chest hair are all different – but limited in length. I am not sure about beards. Beards get quite long, but are usually limited to somewhere between 12 to 36 inches, most commonly about 14 inches. (The longest recorded beard was 18.6 feet long!!) Head hair, however, is quite different.

If left to fend for itself, head hair grows to a length of several feet before it breaks or falls out as the follicle ages. I have seen women with hair dragging behind them on the floor! I am not sure, and couldn’t find a reliable reference, but I suspect our head hair can easily reach to our knees and beyond. I think this is a really odd situation. I am unaware of any other animal having anywhere near this long of hair/fur. Some animals get pretty shaggy looking, but not so much that the hair could become a significant – potentially life threatening – problem.

The only reason that it is manageable for humans is the presence of our highly dexterous hands and clever minds. We make tools to cut our hair, find ways to wrap and tie it out of the way, or create devices to hold our contain it. If we didn’t have our dexterous hands and smart minds we would be severely hampered by our over abundance of head hair. So how does this happen genetically? There are a few animals that are so “over endowed” with sexual displays (primarily birds) that they seriously hampered in their daily lives – it appears that people fall into that category. Perhaps being able to grow so much hair means that that individual is somehow more “fit” than those that can’t.

I don’t have any thoughts to offer about this odd state of affairs other than it seems a rather odd trait to have evolve through the slow process of genetic selection. I wonder how baldness might fit into the picture. Why are we all bald? It seems that generally the story of the development of any given trait can be described in semi-logical terms. The new trait provides an advantage with regard to passing on the gene(s) responsible for that new trait to future generations. What is it about long hair that overshadows the negative repercussions associated with it? It seems that long head hair is only viable in combination with our basic human capabilities – requiring a specific set of characteristics to be a viable option. That means our species acquired a smart enough mind to manage their hair before it could evolve. For example, chimpanzees aren’t smart enough to make the tools necessary to manage long hair, therefore they have short hair. I wonder about our cousins the Neanderthals, did they have long hair too?

Who would have thought that the “American Experiment” was designed to allow the “peaceful” takeover of the Country by an unknown, politically agnostic, megalomaniac foreign dictator?  We all thought that the “founding fathers” had magically created a system of checks and balances, of fair and open elections, of free speech that would automatically bring any dangerous political deviations quickly back to center again.  As long as enough of us believed that – it was true.  However, as soon as enough of us stopped believing in the experiment – it is no longer true.

Rather than being full of checks and balances, protections, and a legal system that made violation of the American dream impossible (and hopefully illegal), we actually built a system without ANY checks and balances.  The founding fathers created, and we perpetuated, the potential for unlimited power and control to any person that had a desire and ability to claim it. 

We are now seeing a totally horrifying, and unexpected, shift of power and control to a narcissistic rich white guy from South Africa who is changing the global balance of power on a whim.  For example, Musk (with Trump’s blessing) just canceled the $40 billion dollar a year USAID program which prevents tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives) of deaths by starvation – just because he could.  In a post on X Musk said that he had “spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could gone to some great parties. Did that instead.”

Shutting down USAID in such a dramatic and immediate way will undoubtedly lead directly to the starvation deaths of thousands of people while opening up grand opportunities for China and Russia as they rush into the void to stop the resulting famine – transferring the mantle of being the global leader of humanitarianism in the eyes of the world from America to China and Russia.  Who knows, perhaps North Korea will also volunteer their assistance and get in on the shining new glory that used to belong to America. 

Not only will this abrupt change in global humanitarian assistance result in many horrible deaths, but it is likely to destroy much of America’s agricultural base that has been struggling for the past decades.  The vast majority of the food as well as manufactured and medical products provided in USAID’s  humanitarian assistance programs comes from USA based farmers and industry.  A $40 billion unexpected cut will undoubtedly bring many farmers to their knees.  These cuts will likely result in many bankruptcies leading to an increase in farmer suicide as they are forced out of business, losing their family farms and their feeling of self-respect.  However, foreign farmers and manufacturers can be expected to reap the benefit of the suddenly expanded market as China, Russia and others rush to fill the void.

The pair’s “feeding USAID into the wood chipper” is just the tip of the iceberg.  Musk and Trump are busily dismantling vast swaths of the Federal Government machinery that has traditionally protected us, including protecting us from madmen gaining control of the power and wealth of the County.  The first step was to eliminate the “checks and balances” aspect of the Supreme Court – which Trump accomplished in his first term.  Then all that was needed was to castrate the Legislative Branch of government by threatening them with unleashing the forces of civil war by his throng of fanatical cult followers – the MAGA group.  Legislators in the Southern States are terrified that a full blown American Civil war will rekindle if they go against the wishes of this crowd – as indeed seems likely.  Trump is a master of using extortion by the threat of unleashing his cult to control the leaders of what were secessionist States during the Civil War.     

So here we are, looking down the barrel of a cannon aimed at destroying our County led by an idiot and his dictatorial foreign madman – apparently without our having any way to divert or stop it.  The only force that could stop this would be through the force of unified opinions of Americans – unfortunately,  the expressed “majority” opinion at this time is that it is much more fun to watch the sparks fly with the hope that something “good” might eventually arise from the ashes of their actions.   

God help us all.

Those of you who have been following my blogs know that I keep talking about the ease by which new and existing homes can be modified to achieve a vastly reduced energy “footprint” while improving comfort, at a cost that is much lower than following most existing HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Cooling) design and installation practices.  No new or exotic technologies or design techniques are required, everything can be implemented using off-the-shelf equipment and well-known design practices.  Unfortunately, installations and retrofits rarely follow known best practices. 

The questions I keep wondering about are: Why are good practices not followed and what changes are necessary to achieve excellent results?  The potential savings to the user (home and small business owners) are far in excess of the costs of the necessary work to achieve them.  Since there is almost always a reduction in the cost following existing (wasteful) practices, there is no “payback” time – correct installations can be achieved at an immediate savings over doing it wrong.  There is no “payback” associated with savings from the cost of doing what would have been done.

My observation is that correct designs are not implemented because there is no one available to do the designs.  Most HVAC contractors are not prepared to do the necessary designs because of a number of reasons.  Foremost is that they don’t have the mind set to do that sort of work.  They do things, they seldom design them.  Sitting down to a computer to create a detailed design is just not in their wheelhouse – they are tradesmen, not engineers.  They learn some “rules of thumb” that always result in systems that have enough power to “work” – their approach results in systems that can heat and cool a house.  Not very efficiently, and probably not very comfortably – but they work.  A second major problem is that designing an efficient home is more than just installing a high SEER HVAC system – it is a “system” problem, including more than just the HVAC unit.  It includes selection of lighting fixtures, appliances, windows, air sealing, ventilation management, insulation, outdoor shading features and many more.  A house is a complex system, one that falls outside of the scope of effort of any one type of subcontractor.  The work falls under the umbrella of a general contractor, but their job isn’t to figure out what to do – it is to do what has been figured out by others.

The third big stumbling block is that there is no place to find a person or firm skilled about designing energy efficient homes and small businesses.  There are engineers, and engineering firms, which do this sort of work for large buildings – but very few doing this design work for smaller buildings (at a fee that is affordable).  It is possible to affordably do this work for small buildings, but most energy engineers prefer to work on the much larger, and more lucrative, multimillion dollar projects.

I have come to the conclusion that in order to change the culture of energy efficiency through the design of new, retrofitted or repaired systems there needs to be a way for building owners to get good designs and advice that they can take to their construction team – rather than the construction team bringing solutions to them.  Currently, if you ask an HVAC contractor to install a new HVAC system, or replace parts of a failed system, they will follow their habitual rules of thumb – that is the only option that most of them have.  They are usually quite willing to follow a design, but don’t have the skills,  available time or desire to be creative.

I have been thinking that perhaps I could create a non-profit business offering design, education and inspection services to building owners, so that they can then use this information to select the necessary contractors.  It seems that perhaps my new firm could offer these services for a reasonable fee, providing detailed design specifications that can be used by contractors during the bidding process. My firm would be totally independent from the contractors to avoid any sort of selection “bias” in the design effort.  Perhaps the government could help fund this sort of effort since it is all for the general good by reducing dependence upon energy, thereby reducing the CO2 and global warming impacts worldwide.  I think governmental assistance could be in the form of loans to the building owners to be paid back by their eventual savings.  Once the process gets underway it might be able to be self-sufficient.  However, to get started will take an investment in the business.  Offices will need to be obtained and equipped, employees will need to be hired and trained (since very few engineers know how to do this work), test equipment will need to be purchased – and the early stages of the high cost of starting a new business funded.

However, the other day a new idea crossed my mind.  Perhaps this work isn’t best performed by an independent entity such as the business that I have been contemplating, perhaps there is already an entity already in place that can do this better , and more efficiently, than I have been contemplating.  Perhaps the utility companies are in a better position to provide this service, for free, to the building owner. 

Perhaps the services necessary for providing design assistance can be funded through the Public Purpose Programs* portion of the power bill.  In California, this charge already funds a wide variety of educational programs aimed at teaching contractors, homeowners, building officials and others the details of how to achieve highly efficient buildings (both residential and large commercial buildings).  They already have the staff, facilities, curriculum, and experience for providing the educational aspects of the process.  The inspection parts are already being done through a combination of efforts by the local building departments and third party “HERS” (Home Energy Rating System) inspectors.  The combination of the building department and the HERS inspections have the capability for ensure that energy installations meet the appropriate design standards.  The California Energy Code (Title 24) already contains the basis for achieving an excellent and efficient home energy system.

The part that is missing is a cost effective means of linking the training, regulations, system designs, installations and inspections to achieve excellent results.  All of the basic parts have been accomplished, but there is nobody in place to tie it all together into a working whole.  Someone needs to engineer solutions – the contractors can’t do it, very few engineering or architectural firms have the capability to do this work, and those that do change so much that it makes the process seem unrealistic. 

A couple of days ago a friend of mine called to ask for advice on how to get a good solution for his upgrade to his old and failing HVAC system.  He is aware that I have experience designing and installing systems for some of our neighbors (I am an engineer and a general contractor), achieving near net-zero energy performance for their older “tract” homes for a cost similar to what local HVAC contractors bid to replace their failing systems with “high efficiency” units that would have resulted in almost no improvement in efficiency.   He knew that I retired a few years ago and therefore not willing to take on his project.  He was asking me for a recommendation for a firm that might do the system level designs that I used to do, thereby minimizing costs while greatly cutting his energy bill.  Having been in the business, and recently hiring an HVAC contractor to install a new HVAC system in a house I am renovating, I realized that I don’t know of any local contractors, engineers or others to do this work.  I couldn’t find anyone for my renovation (and I was just too busy to do it), and I don’t know of any within a hundred miles that might be able to do the work.  I know of a person in the far end of northern California and another in the Sierra Foothills – but that it is.  I suppose there might be few others, but I don’t know how to find them – or trust them. 

My friend knows about what is needed, is hoping for find someone to do that work properly, and is looking for assistance – but isn’t able to do so.  By the way, the contractor I hired did just what I expected – he installed a bunch of equipment that “does the job,” but is far from “optimal” from the efficiency and comfort point of view (and did some major structural damage to my house in the process because he couldn’t recognize what parts of the building structure are necessary and which aren’t.  He cut out some critically important structural elements).

What we both needed was access to an organization that could assess the energy needs of our buildings, offer energy improvement options, and provide a detailed HVAC design that would achieve good energy efficiency.  By the way, the idea of “energy efficiency” in a building is a bit different from what is normally discussed in the engineering world.  It isn’t so much efficiency in the sense of the most amount of energy out for the least amount of energy in.  Rather, it is providing comfort and utility for the least amount of energy in.  Insulation is an example of what I mean.  Good thermal insulation doesn’t exactly improve the efficiency of any equipment, but it does result in a building that maintains comfort with less energy. 

I am currently convinced that the major energy suppliers are in the best position to provide the range of services that I am suggesting.  They have the staff, the knowledge and a funding source.  Perhaps the Public Purpose Program fee will need to be increased a little bit to fund this sort of initiative, but a program such as this could provide an incalculable benefit to the “public” good – locally, nationally and globally.

*The Public Purpose Programs are listed as one of the line item fees on electrical bills.  These fees are used to fund many energy related efforts such as support for low income individuals and many training programs. 

This morning while lazing in bed half asleep thinking about getting up I wondered about the utility of back scratching. It is obviously a universal human enjoyment, as evidenced by the phrase “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine.” We all know what that means – if we work together we can both “win.”

As I contemplated the pleasures of having my back scratched I realized that it is a lot more pleasurable than we let on. A nice back scratch is GREAT! Back scratching is much better than having other areas, such as my legs or belly, scratched by my favorite friend – there is nothing like the sublime pleasure of a good scratching of my back. When my back is being scratched newly created itches seem to travel around my back – just begging the scratcher to roam over my entire back. I find myself in complete bliss when it is done properly (and there is a wide range of what I consider “properly”).

So what is up with this? Giving a back scratch seems much more compelling than just being a nice thing to do – it seems more compelling than a nice massage/rub of the same place. It feels powerfully “bonding” in nature, but different than just sexual pleasure.

This makes me wonder if there isn’t something much more; something very primordial, more “primitive,” about this activity. When I think of a troop of baboons, or chimpanzees, the image that first comes to mind is of them sitting or squatting next to each other with one grooming the back of the other. Sure, they are picking (and eating) nits (lice), but I suspect there is there a bigger “reason” than just hygienic sharing.

A quick search of Google found this information, “It has been scientifically proven that touch can reduce stress, lower blood pressure, and improve mood. Back scratches, in particular, activate the C-tactile fibers in our skin, which are responsible for transmitting pleasant sensations to the brain. This activation leads to the release of oxytocin, a hormone associated with bonding and feelings of trust.”

Wow – these are pretty important benefits from such a simple procedure.

I am going to throw out a hypothesis that back scratching is an ancient activity maintained in our genes because it is a critical part of the “glue” that keeps us bonded to our partner, family and “troop.” I predict that if we neglect the extremely important gift of giving each other back scratches (as opposed to just back rubs), we miss out on a major part of our humanity. I suspect back scratching might be as important, or perhaps even more important than the sexual act for maintaining group cohesion.

I know of no research into the topic of the importance of back scratching to maintain strong inter-personal bonding, but I suspect that it is huge just from the level of exquisite enjoyment that I experience. The pleasure seems entirely out of proportion given the simplicity, and innocence, of the activity. Sure, it also feels good to have my head rubbed/scratched. Yep – all parts of my body love to be massaged. But back scratching rises to an entirely different level – I think that it must be very important in some unknown and hidden way. It isn’t just a “back scratch,” I think it may be an important part of the glue that allows humans to live in communities and form stable families.

This is just my wondering why should it feel so darned good? Lots of things feel good, but nothing like a great backrub/scratching session.

Sujata Gupta’s article called “Secrets of Human Navigation” in the January 2025 issue of ScienceNews describes some very interesting research on the subject. Apparently the question of how humans find their way has intrigued, and eluded, scientists for decades. Interestingly, it seems that “getting lost” is a problem usually associated with living in modern cities. City dwellers do pretty well at navigating in cities where the roads form rectangular grids and there are a lot of stationary markers (such as buildings, bridges, etc) – but these folks don’t do so well in locations without roads and clearly identifiable markers. The more a person spends “wandering in the outdoors” the better they are at navigation. Those that live in the wild country don’t even know what it means to be lost.

According to the article, “the Western fear of getting lost is incomprehensible to the Evenki (Northern Russia) hunters.” Valasco and Gleizer reported in a recent study, “When we asked an Evenki hunter what he would do if lost, he looked at us confused and said, ‘Well, I would just find my way.'” So much for getting lost for someone who navigates.

I have read that there are differences between the sexes when it comes to navigation techniques. Apparently, men tend to navigate by dead-reckoning, women tend to use known landmarks. Men travel long distances over unfamiliar territory while women tend to stay closer to home. Perhaps that is related to the “hunter” (men)/”gatherer”(women) sharing of survival skills. While this seems like a plausible distinction, I am unaware of any actual evidence of this distinction. Gupta suggested that people either navigate by following a specific route where they know which way to turn (using landmarks), or by gauging cardinal directions. City dwellers rely more on route strategies while people living in “the wild” rely more on spatial navigation.

I found this article to be fascinating because I often wondered how I navigated when I was an avid hiker/camper/explorer kind of individual. It seemed that I always just knew the way to camp, without needing to know the area or see maps. As a child I was allowed to wonder freely in the hills near my home. From the age of perhaps eight years old I wandered in the densely wooded hills without supervision or any knowledge of where I was going – I was just playing and exploring. My “territory” was quite hilly, and perhaps ten miles in diameter. While it was fairly constrained, it was certainly large enough to get lost in, but that never crossed my mind (and apparently didn’t cross my parent’s either) – although much of the terrain was new to me, I always knew “where” I was in the sense of always knowing where home was in terms of direction and distance. It felt like that was a “fixed” location that I could just naturally return to.

Another example of navigating without landmarks is when I ran a small fishing boat with my father.  He owned an open hull sixteen foot “runabout” outboard boat.  We would start out at dawn, heading out into the Pacific Ocean through thick fog until we were perhaps a few miles off of shore where we hoped the fish were. This part of the California is known for the dense morning fog, so we would often use the compass to find our way for the first mile or two until we were safely away from the shore. I drove and navigated, while my father fished from our very small commercial fishing boat.

My job was to follow a square pattern for a fixed period of time (e.g., thirty minutes – perhaps three miles) on a side until it was time to go home, and then take us back to the harbor. However, this was more difficult than it appeared because the fog eliminated visual clues of direction, and the almost complete lack of knowledge about currents and wind directions made it effectively impossible to know my location at any time. I could use the compass the generally drive toward the four quadrants, but didn’t actually know just how “square” my squares were, or where they were located. At some point my father would decide that fishing was done for the day, and I had to “navigate” back to the narrow harbor entrance – but after several hours there was no way to know which way to go except generally to the east (toward the continent). If I missed and ended up a mile or so north of the harbor we would end up in the breakers and crash on the beach. This stretch of beach was the site of many ship wrecks caused by this miscalculation. In the fog you can’t tell that you are moving into the back side of the breakers until they get so steep and forceful that they become a trap where you can’t get out of again.

As odd as it seems, I never felt “lost” or even concerned. I knew where the entrance to the harbor was, and I knew how to get there through the swells and choppy sea.  I would just turn the boat to the correct direction until we could hear the whistle buoy welcoming our return.  It all just seemed easy and natural – but I also recognized that I had no obvious way of accomplishing this feat.  My father was so unconcerned that he acted as if “of course you know the way home.” There was never a question.

When I was about thirty-five years old I went to Maui in Hawaii for a vacation to visit my parents who were working there.  I borrowed my father’s car to site see and discovered that my “direction finder” didn’t work there.  For the first time in my life I had to depend upon a map to know which way to go. I had to go from known object to known object, like a blind man feeling his way along. It was slightly embarrassing, and almost scary to not know how to know which way to go. 

I was never able to free-form navigate after that trip. I didn’t lose the “feeling” but as likely as not I would go in the exact opposite direction. The feeling is still so strong that I have a very difficult time not believing it. One morning I was driving my client to a meeting in San Jose, California.  The morning was very foggy, dense fog far enough from the ground to be able to drive, but so dense that landmarks and street signs were invisible.  It didn’t bother me, I knew where we were going and “felt” the directions – until we drove up on a slight hill where we could see I had gone east instead of west!  Luckily GPS came into my life so I can get around in my car without being lost. Otherwise I am dependent upon known objects or maps.

About 15 years ago I took a trip to Australia to join an old college buddy on an extended driving “walkabout” bird census trip in the great deserts around Alice Springs. One day we were camping in some “wild country” mountains in the far “outback,” many miles from the nearest town or civilization. We found a small creek where there were a lot of rock carvings leading up a small waterway.  We clambered up the creek from rock to rock to see the next petroglyph. By mid-day it was turning pretty hot, we had no lunch and decided it was time to back to camp – but couldn’t. We had managed to climb up a steep slope that was too dangerous to go back down. So we had little choice but to go the rest of the way to the top where we ended on a large treeless tableland. By this point we had lost all bearings of direction, the sun was directly overhead so of no use for discerning cardinal directions.  We were well and good “lost” in the sense of not knowing where we were or which way to go to get back to camp. Every direction looked the same. So we decided to just walk, which was pretty stupid given that we were probably 100 miles from the next person and nobody knew we were there. We just walked for a couple of hours. We finally came to a bluff, which we managed to slip and slide down to a large waterway, figuring that that would eventually lead to a road where we might find help. At the bottom of the bluff we walked around a big bush and ran smack dab into our car!

The point of all of this is that I suspect human navigation is MUCH more complicated that simply knowing the cardinal directions or remembering paths or even noticing landmarks and known objects. I wonder if there might not be something in us that detects magnetic fields, or perhaps can detect polarized light like some birds and other animals. I wonder if there might not be things that we detect that we can “feel” but don’t really recognize as an obvious experience like those of sight, sound and touch. I don’t know what those things might be, but I do know that my experience of “knowing the way” was quite strong, and for 35 years it worked. Then it didn’t. That seems quite odd in itself. If it was just learned behavior to observe my surroundings, why would that all of a sudden vanish?

In any case, there are many mysteries to life such as the ability to navigate that while are probably open to scientific scrutiny, aren’t as obvious I they first appear to be. I keep my eyes open for research that hints of senses beyond those that we are so familiar to us.