On December 17, Phys.org published a paper, “After thousands of years, an iconic whale confronts a new enemy,” from the University of Copenhagen.
Teetering at the Tipping Point
We can shift the balance of humanity’s environmental impacts from damaging to harmonizing, by recognizing the implications of one paragraph.
“Even when a ship’s noise is lower than the background noise in the ocean and we can no longer hear it with our advanced equipment, the whales can hear and distinguish it from other sounds in their midst. And so, to a degree, their behavior is clearly affected. This demonstrates how incredibly sensitive narwhals are.” – Phys.org.
We are also incredibly sensitive.
Although not stated directly above, the researchers explain how changes in behavior of narwhals, caused by noise pollution, imperils their lives.
There are those who argue otherwise. Their voices are dictating policy and opinion, and taken us to the brink of irreversible harm.
There is a Great Deal That We Do Not Know. We Need to Stop Pretending Otherwise.
Whale Trust reports,
“The humpback whale song is one of the most complex, non-human, acoustic displays in the animal kingdom.
But why males sing is still a mystery. [ ]
Whale Trust Maui researchers have been following, recording, and tracking humpback whales singers off the coast of Maui, Hawaii since the mid-70s. After decades of study, we are currently testing the hypothesis that the song may function as an index of association between individual males.[ ]– Whale Trust
After decades of study, we still don’t know.
Meanwhile, our unscientific, unsafe “technology” is being imposed on the oceans.
The time to change direction is now, regarding domination, entitlement, and manifest destiny.
How the Narwhal Research Did Not Weaponize Science and Research
The narwhal researchers are not pretending that behavioral change does not indicate probable harm, including stress, pain and suffering, decreased quality of life, and decreased lifespan.
The researchers are not pretending that altered physiology does not translate into a threat for survival.
They are not demanding a diagnosis of disease before advocating heeding biological warnings.
They are not asserting that because they can’t measure the noise frequency with their sensitive equipment that it does not exist.
They are not claiming that because they can’t measure sound (or, because it is below a certain threshold) that the noise cannot be detected by an organism’s biology.
They are not using lack of detection by technology (v. biology) as evidence of safety.
Recognition of limitations of technology has not informed policymaking. Decision-makers are enabling blind exploitation of land and space. We are not safeguarding humans, or any other species, with our misbegotten ideas.
Anthropomorphic Noise, Anthropomorphic Frequencies
The Copenhagen researchers recognize the exquisite adaptations and sensitivity of the narwhals to their underwater environment, and recognize the stress reaction to anthropogenic noise.
We could have recognized the same sensitivities in ourselves and in other species, and worked to insure that our technologies did not cause harm, decades ago, for example, (most recently, with “smart” grids and 5G).
Instead, we are awash in a sea of lying.
How the Tech and Wireless Industries Weaponize Science and Research
For the better part of the last few decades, telecom/tech policy has been barreling ahead with bullying, unscientific assertions. The industry and its regulators claim:
- “Just because some humans are reporting harm from exposures does not indicate harm, or cause and effect “(despite the fact William Rea developed protocols, using acceptable medical tests, quantifying microwave poisoning )
- “Just because someone’s physiology is disrupted it doesn’t mean that RF is causing harm. Disease onset must be proven “(despite the fact that we know the disease toll of stress and use it to inform policy for other pollutants)
- “Microwaves are outside the range of human hearing, so tinnitus is all ‘in the their heads'”
- (despite the discovery and proof of microwave hearing by Alan Frey, in the 1960s)
- “Measurements using technical equipment prove lack of harm” (by the propaganda of time averaging rather than peak exposures, and because cumulative, chronic, and juxtaposed exposures and sensitive populations are not considered )
This is how industry weaponizes attitudes, beliefs, policies, arrogance, and greed, using science and technology.
“Tobacco is Good for a Sore Throat and More Tech is Good for Sustainability”
Military-industrial-financial unscientific assertions are not based on “not-knowing.” The industry is not seeking to evolve science; it is justifying its own pathology.
We have been down this road before, many times.
The tobacco industry once told smokers that cigarettes were good for a sore throat, (as well as various other ailments).
Wireless is the tobacco of our time.
Techno-ecocide’s Dark Age
The most challenging societal threats continuing into 2022 are not climate, covid, the digital divide, the racial divide, lack of broadband access for farmers, China, Russia, aliens, or lack of internet access underwater.
Kate Kheel recently coined the phrase “techno-ecocide.”
Techno-ecocide is the systematic destruction of our ecosystem by the exploitative use of technology.
Previous generations have confronted strangleholds of pathological, inhumane, top-down control and belief systems. This is a Dark Age for comprehension, consciousness, discernment, and ethics, directly manifested by brainwashing regarding safety, security, and sustainability of wireless and radiofrequency surveillance technologies.
If we do not heed the threat that unbridled tech advancement and militarization (in the form of smart oceans and the internet of underwater things) presents to all of underwater life, we will lose the planet’s abundance.
Threat, risk, and possible demise does not rest with an externalized climate, environment, or nature, as portrayed by the mainstream narrative. It falls on humanity.
Not Safe, Not Secure, Not Sustainable; We Can Respond with Discernment, and Our Unyielding Capacity to Revere Nature and Respect Others
The underlying challenge is that we fear the consequences of addressing the truth about the damage we are unleashing.
We do not want to admit that tech won’t save us. In doing so, we deny our creativity and adaptability. We deny the support available to us from the entire cosmos, which is the true source of abundance and connectivity.
The underlying issue is the fracturing of our relationship with the natural world. The fear narrative depicts humans as separate from nature, and/or, alternatively at the mercy of nature (climate) as a terrifying, unpredictable perpetrator to be controlled.
This permeates every aspect of our life, from food to education to health care.
In previous Dark Ages, wisdom has gone underground, for example, with herbalism during the Witch trials.
The narwhal study states “Technology offers excellent opportunities to reduce noise.” The funding for the article was reportedly provided by the Greenland Environmental Agency for Mineral Resource Activities.
But we don’t have our science straight about noise, sound, and microwave hearing, for any species. We haven’t yet determined how to protect humans from nuisance noise. Sound travels differently underwater. Microwave hearing is in a separate category of unacknowledged, invasive assault.
Data, so far, has gotten us nowhere. The over-engineered paradigms we use to gather data, themselves, are polluting and causing harm, for example, the insanity of measuring particulate air pollution with radio frequencies, or measuring climate impacts wirelessly, with satellites.
Tagging more ocean mammals with RF transmitters and listening with a microphone based on a primitive theory regarding noise thresholds is an extinction paradigm.
Looking at Clouds from Both Sides Now
Researchers have only recently understood the impact of clouds of whale fecal plumes in balancing the ocean ecosystem.
Microsoft’s article “Cloud ‘data bursts’ from space move astronauts closer to Mars — and improve life on Earth” promotes the use of open source software in space as progress, noting, “[ ] once we’re able to connect devices from space to the computers we have here on Earth, we open up a big sandbox, and we can all be part of experimentation in space and developing new technologies that we’ll use in the future.”
Space domination is not improving life on earth. Bringing the lack of consciousness and exploitation (causing harm inflicted by human experimentation without knowledge and consent) from land to space is not improving life on earth.
How is it that the nature environment became tech’s “sandbox?”
We can’t rely on our rudimentary, primitive misunderstanding of “species noise thresholds” and decimate the underwater environment.
And, omitting military impacts from our politicized “climate math” is a fatal error.
Do You Hear What I Hear?
Cells are always “listening,” even deep underwater where the narwhals dive, for the harmonizing and life-sustaining frequencies of nature. Cellular biology, including that of humans and narwhals, is incredibly sensitive, and bio-electric.
Technocracy has been unwilling to humble itself before the intelligence of nature and the earth.
But we can listen with our own ears, hearts and minds, without the misleading control of unhinged technology, seeking to sustain its own hubris.
We can, with great respect, learn true sustainability from indigenous peoples, including the Ittoqqortoormiit hunters.
We can reconnect, with nature and with each other.