Uncategorized
Religions of the world – AND CONSERVATION
When I was a child of four it was a wondrous thing to look up at a giraffe. From the advantage of being small, the size of these beautiful animals seemed to tower towards the sky. Elegant in posture and stance, with friendly large eyes,that looked down from a great distance, they seemed to suggest that they were much wiser than they seemed. In the world of children these are nothing less than magical animals. May they always be with us.
And now I read that their populations are collapsing: poaching being a major factor. Until now we were keenly aware that rhino and elephants were sustaining pressure. But giraffes? They were never in the news as endangered. That has changed. And what if they become extinct? Would it matter? Clearly, from the world of children, a wonderful animal would have been removed: leaving the lives of children the poorer for that.
So what about the great religions of the world in all of this?
Conservation programmes across the world are not protecting species. Why? Because an affection for wildlife is not there. Yes, we may not want to see a species pass to extinction but we are not exercised on the issue to want to DO something to save it. I can speak bluntly of this because I have been involved in conservation all my life; a life, I suspect, that is longer than most reading this blog. And yes, there are wonderfully dedicated people around the planet who care for nature with a passion. But the problem is one of numbers. Conservation has become the politics of numbers. Unless people, in their millions, offer a voice towards conservation, we will continue in this inadequate drip-feed approach to conserving species. Yet, how are we to reach the millions that are needed?
The great religions in the world have the ears of the hundreds of millions of their followers. They also have great cathedrals and mosques, churches and temples that could readily be used to reach out to their faithful on matters of nature conservation. The founders of these great religions discovered enlightenment in wild places. Such places appear to hold spiritual qualities that can benefit all of us, provided they remain intact. Therefore, once a year, could the spiritual leaders of these great religions not preach to their people of the value of preserving nature? That way the thinking of hundreds of millions of people will enter the debate on how best to prevent the draining away of so many species into extinction.
We have tried the other; dedicated groups across the world trying to do what they can against the indifference of the many. And it has not worked. The Red Books of extinctions are proof of that.
The dedicated associations, clubs and individuals who care, with a passion, for nature might consider this and now focus their energies on persuading the religious leaders, that they know, to take up this thinking. They, in turn,to be encouraged to generate a ground-swell that will move up the chain to the highest spiritual leaders that they would embrace this idea for conservation, and make it possible that the places of worship under their care would, for one day a year, be used in this fashion. We need their help. At this stage we must think in such radical ways if we are ever to instill a global ethic for conservation.
Members of conservation clubs and associations around the world, and public conservation bodies, entrusted to the preservation of species, might wish to debate this idea. We have tried everything else – and yet we lose species. This loss will continue unless people, in their tens of millions, have a change of perception of the value of wildlife to all of us.
Patrick.
Writers & Writing – The Economics of Being a Bag-man.
An English writer who had a novel published, with scant publicity from his publisher, had a plan. He would bring copies of his book from bookshop to bookshop to generate sales. In confidence he told me of his experience.
The publisher’s wholesale price was £7.50. Because he was the author he would be allowed a discount of between 35% – 40%. They settled on 40%. This meant he could buy copies of his book for £5 (ignore the pennies). He bought several hundred copies to test out his plan, and went from bookshop to bookshop.
Some shop owners took two copies ‘to see how things would go’. Others agreed to take as high as ten copies. These were exceptional. All deals were on the understanding of ‘sale or return’. And all demanded 35% on the retail price.
The retail price was critical if the author was to make a worthwhile return. So where to set the retail price? Too high a price and ‘sale or return’ would loom large. He settled on £9.99 (say £10). Out of this the shop would take £3.50, and with the wholesale price to him of £5, this meant that for each book sold the author would get £1.50. Compared to the ‘take’ of the others it seemed little indeed.
His difficulty was compounded further when he factored in his ‘time’ spent going from shop to shop, some at considerable distance from his home. And when he considered the transport costs in making deliveries, and the cost of return journeys to pick up unsold copies – the whole adventure became questionable.
His experience? He would never go that route again. It was simply not worth it.
Was he particularly unlucky, or do others have similar tales to tell? Writers benefit from hearing about such experiences. We can learn a lot from each other, so your comments would be most welcome on this, or on any other aspect of writing.
Patrick.
How do you decide on the price of your eBook?
I got some queries on a shorter blog on this subject, so the following might help to flesh out this problem on pricing.
You, as the author, must decide on the price. Clearly you want to maximize your income. The price you set looms large in this ambition. So, think carefully on this question of price. Set it too high and reader resistance becomes a factor. Set it too low and there will be a feeling that it can’t be any good at that price. That is your dilemma.
Then there is the emotional run of things that you, the writer, brings into your decision. ‘Spent three good years writing this novel and it’s a damn good read. Therefore I will demand a high price’. Wonderful. All very understandable, a reaction like that. But the problem is that the buyers out there are not at all exercised by the thought that you spent three years writing the thing. All right, so the world is unfair. Nobody understands you: and you steeped in genius! The buyer is largely focusing down on price. Yes, if you are a well known writer you can expect a high price for your latest creation. But, if you are unknown, as a writer, no matter how wonderful the writing or what extraordinary epic you have produced, you need to grub down into the reality on pricing – and set your price at a lower level than an established writer can demand. If, in time, you make it into the big sale numbers, at that stage you can increase your price.
EBooks, compared to their printed cousins, are cheap to produce. Readers expect such electronic books to be cheaper. Whether you agree with this or not it is a fact. So don’t try to compare prices: an eBook is a different product.
There is one enormous benefit to eBook authors in all of this. Other that those printed books sold through outlets like Amazon, printed books are limited in reaching potential buyers by the number of shops stocking the books, and indeed by the positioning of the books on the shelves. And the shelf life of a printed book can be very short. If it is not generating sales it can quickly be withdrawn and returned to the publisher. EBooks have the potential of reaching readers across the world and they do not suffer the threat of a short shelf space.
So, you finally make the decision to go the eBook route. Great. So, what about the price?
Amazon is interesting on this question of price. If you price your book somewhere between $2.99 and $9.99 you get to keep 70% of the price. This is far more than you would ever get for a printed work. So, a low price for an eBook offers the prospect of giving you a higher return than a higher priced printed book.
Above the price of $9.99, or indeed at a price lower than $2.99, your take drops to 35%. There is little reason to go into why this is so – it is just the case. So, for best returns, on balance, it seems good sense not to drift higher on price than $9.99. As an aside, non-fiction books can expect to get higher prices as they are not so price-sensitive.
As in many aspects of life things are never straight. In this matter of pricing, some writers claim that when they set their price low that they got few sales, but that when they raised their prices more books were sold. Anyone like to explain that?
American readers appear to be more sensitive to pricing. You should consider this if you intend to aim at the USA market.
At the end of your head-rattling in trying to come up with a suitable price it still seems best to settle somewhere between $2.99 and $9.99. Midway between these prices might be a place to look at. But something else you should be aware about in this matter of price – although you may set a price that seems reasonable, Amazon, Apple and others, may set the price higher or lower on their platforms. Welcome to the mysteries of business!
In the end it is your call on a decision on pricing and I wish you all success on your decision.
Patrick.
eBook Publishing
How does a writer decide on the price of his or her eBook?
Now, there’s a question! And that decision must be made by the author.
Clearly the intent is to maximize income. The price you set looms large in this ambition. So think carefully on this question of price. Set it too high and reader resistance becomes a factor. Too low and buyers may feel it can’t be much at that price – and pass. Who said life is easy!
If you are unknown, as a writer, no matter how wonderful you write, or what extraordinary epic you have produced, you need to grub down into the reality on pricing, and set your price at a lower level than established writers can demand. If, in time, you make it into the big sales numbers, then you can increase the price. And raise a glass as well.
WAR – AND WE THE PEOPLE!
Conflicts can grow from tiny beginnings. Indignation can build from a small matter to the point where countries go to war. And young men and young women are once more sent out to kill each other.
There is a simmering dispute between Japan and China over ownership of a small group of islands. It would be a fine thing indeed if resentment on both sides were put to rest. The consequences of a dispute here is unpredictable – and it could have consequences for the rest of us. Must we, the people of the world, always stay silent in matters like this? Our voices, if in sufficient numbers, generating a global concern, could help both sides of the conflict to draw back from conflict and struggle towards a more moderate position.
One position that we might suggest is that the disputed islands and the seas around them be designated as a world national park to be administered by the IUCN, or similar body, for the benefit and the protection of species that depend for their survival on that area. ‘Ownership’ of this disputed area could be placed under the authority of the UN until such time that both parties to the dispute anvil out between them a more peaceful accommodation for their difficulties. And young men and young women need not go to war.
The United Nations may find difficulty with this proposal. If so then let it modify what is proposed here so that it fits into their accepted procedures – but let it happen. You owe us that.
Those who read this blog, if you agree with what is proposed here, I would be pleased indeed if you would re-blog it and re-tweet it to others to generate a ground-swell of ‘people opinion’ to prevent this creeping inevitability toward conflict over these islands.
PATRICK.
Kill all snakes and frogs!
Are we clowns?
32% of amphibians; 24% of birds and 12% of mammals are in threat of extinction. Hundreds of these offer potential in medical science and in food improvements but even with that going for them we are still not unduly exercised by this reality. We are indeed fools.
Bushmaster snakes from South America kill in an interesting manner – their venom drops the blood pressure of their victims to zero. But the same venom hold potential in the manufacture of blood pressure medication.
The poison in Panamanian Poison Frogs offer possibility in alleviating heart conditions. One scorpion may prove useful in the production of molecules to fight brain tumours.
There are about 600 species of cone snails. Only six have been studied in any detail. Those who suffer from epilepsy should know that the poison in the dart that they inject into their prey offers hope for this ailment. Yet we destroy the mangrove swamps that they need: why do we destroy them? We do it to create shrimp farms.
Yes we are indeed clowns.
At this stage we need nothing less than a world conservation ethic that millions of people in dozens of countries would experience a wake-up call that all of us need to come together to stem this loss of species – even if it is only for our own selfish reasons.
We are indeed fools if we continue to allow this draining away of potential into extinction.
Nothing less than a World Ethic for Nature!
There will be a three day festival – the Carnsore Summer School in Wexford on Friday 23 August to Sunday 25 August. If last year’s events are anything to go by this will be a wonderful happy occasion of music and dance and discussion on the environment and how we might all work together to improve it.
I have been invited to give a talk on Saturday afternoon on how we might generate a world ethic for nature. I hope to meet many who follow me on my blog at the festival. You might like to turn up for one or for all of the days.
Details on the events at the Carnsore Point Summer School can be had by logging onto the Green Foundation Ireland website.
Hope to see you all there.
Patrick
To Hell with Ecology.
“To hell with ecology I want my job” This was a headline I saw in a Florida newspaper 30 years ago. And notwithstanding thousands of conferences, discussions and editorials over those past 30 years there has been scant shift from this attitude.
There is a political immutable reality too that stands as a twin brother beside this intransigency. When any government’s policy on the environment clashes up against its policy on job creation – job considerations always win.
In a few hours time I will be attending the Dublin Climate Gathering meeting. Sincere concerns will be expressed at the prospects of global warming. At a thousand gatherings similar to this one participants will be expected to be optimistic that through ardent discussion we will somehow uncover solutions to this planet-wide dilemma.
But the attitude as held in that Florida newspaper those years ago holds just as steady today. So, following conference after conference, we will muddle along in the absence of any worthwhile change.
Global temperatures will continue to increase. Goepolitical and environmental changes will flow as a consequence. We need now to plan for global warming.
Now where’s my coat? I have a conference to attend to!
Patrick.
Loss of Wonderment.
In a rainforest in Queensland, Australia, in about 1980 a small frog sat on a stone in a wet place. She had conspicuously protruding eyes. At a casual glance there was little beyond that that would catch the interest of a passer-by. Except for one thing. She had been given the extraordinary name of gastric-brooding frog. How could anyone conjure-up such a name! Come on!
This frog, with no notable colouration, however, had one little trick that said she was important.
Frog’s eggs, tadpoles and babies suffer from high predation. So what is a frog to do to protect her brood? This species evolved an astonishing process to give her youngsters their best chance of survival. She laid her eggs and the male fertilized them in the normal way of frogs. Then she did an unbelievable thing – she ate them all up – like Goldilocks eating the baby bear’s porridge.
So where’s the great plan in all of that? Eating your own eggs to prevent Great Diving Beetles from doing the same seems – well – a bit dumb. It’s as though mum hadn’t quite joined up all the dotted lines to come up with a workable solution.
When food slips down into the stomach – acids break it up into nutrients – but in this frog’s case the eggs secrete a chemical that protects them from the corrosive digestive juices. The developing tadpoles and the resultant baby frogs, still in the mother’s stomach, also produce the same protective shield. And when mum frog judges the time to be right she regurgitates and spits out her brood of tiny children, one by one, to take their chances in the great world outside.
And there is another consideration here – usefulness – to us. In the USA alone up to 25 million Americans suffer from peptic ulcers; a painful condition. Could the chemical shield produced by the eggs of this frog lead to the discovery of a drug that would be a cure for this painful human condition? Scientists started to work on this possibility. Then all research stopped. Why? Because sometime in the early 1980s the gastric-brooding frog became extinct. It had taken millions of years of evolution to create this chemical – and now it had disappeared with the disappearance of this frog.
There were two different species of gastric-brooding frog. Both have become extinct. the reason is not clear. Fungal infection and damage to the bits of rainforest they needed may have been part of the cause.
That a small frog managed to evolve such a process is far beyond our understanding. We can only drop down into silence at the mystery of it all.
In her going we have lost one more wonder from our world.